Australasian Journal of Herpetology - Smuggled · Hoser 2009 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology...

Australasian Journal of Herpetology 1

Available online at www.herp.netCopyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved

Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Australasian Journal of Herpetology 2 (2009):1-34. ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)

INTRODUCTION

The snake, known generally as the White-lippedPython, Liasis albertisii Peters and Doria, (1878), wasinadvertently redescribed the following year asLeiopython gracilis by Hubrecht (1879), who alsocreated the monotypic genus for the taxon, namelyLeiopython.

Over the intervening 120 years the taxonomy of thegenus remained stable at the species level, but thegenus assignment varied in line with general trends inpython taxonomy, with various authors assigning thetaxon to the genera Liasis (e.g. Stull, 1935, Stimson,1969, McDowell, 1975), Bothrochilus (e.g. Cogger,Cameron and Cogger, 1983, Hoser, 1989, Rawlings,

et. al. 2008), Lisalia (e.g. Wells and Wellington, 1984)and Morelia (e.g. Underwood and Stimson, 1990).

Kluge 1993, and most authors since then, includingO’Shea (1996), Hoser (2000b and later papers),O’Shea (2007a, 2007b) have referred the taxon to thegenus Leiopython, with the nomenclature at the genuslevel remaining that way to at least 2008 with very fewexceptions.

While this paper continues to place the White-lippedPythons in the genus Leiopython, the genus placementof these snakes is not of importance in the context ofthis paper.

For many years, it’s been known that there were twodistinct variants being identified as “White-lipped

CREATIONISM AND CONTRIVED SCIENCE:A REVIEW OF RECENT PYTHON SYSTEMATICS PAPERS AND THERESOLUTION OF ISSUES OF TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE.

RAYMOND HOSER

488 Park Road, Park Orchards, Victoria, 3134, Australia.Phone : +61 3 9812 3322 Fax: 9812 3355 E-mail : [email protected]

Received 5 January 2009, Accepted 25 January 2009, Published 3 February 2009.

ABSTRACTThis paper revisits the systematics of pythons as detailed in post 2000 papers and finds the taxonomy at thespecies level to be generally sound.

The undisputed data showed need for the stabilization of the taxonomy and nomenclature at other levels, theresult being this paper formally names for the first time two new subgenera and a new subspecies, (Chondropythonviridis adelynhoserae subsp. nov.) as well as listing names of recently diagnosed species taxa with availablenames that are not widely known among herpetologists.

Furthermore, two subspecies within the genus Aspidites are named as is a Leiopython subspecies.However, much of this paper deals with a 2008 division of the species “Leiopython albertisi” in 2008 by a selfconfessed “amateur herpetologist” to create a total of what he now claims is many species (at least five). This isdemonstrated to be incorrect on the basis of the evidence presented.

An assessment shows no evidence supporting division of the genus into any more than the two long recognisedtaxa, Leiopython albertisi Peters and Doria, 1878 (the brown Leiopython from north of the central New Guineacordillera) and Leiopython hoserae Hoser 2000 (the larger, black Leiopython from south of the central NewGuinea cordillera) at the species level.

Dishonest practices, cynical alteration or omission of “facts”, data and “findings”, statistical manipulation withquestionable parameters, gross double standards, fraud, and plagiarization by the author of the 2008 paper and/or his immediate (self-identified) co-workers are identified.

Keywords: snake; reptile; Jackypython; adelynhoserae; rawlingspython; Leiopython; hoserae; Schleip; Wüster;David John Williams; smuggling, animal cruelty; albertisi; taxonomy; fraud; wikipedia; biakensis; barkerorum;bennettorum; huonensis; fredparkeri; antaresia; chondropython; Australiasis; Aspidites; neildavieii; rickjonesii,python

Australasian Journal of Herpetology2


Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Python”, this taxon, lumped generically as “L. albertisi”,including the northern “brown race” and the southern“black race” (see for example O’Shea 2007a).

The differences, included size, behavioural, includingtemperament and scalation. The two variants werealso separated by distribution, in the form of the centralNew Guinea Range and that both may be differentspecies was known by many herpetologists for manyyears, including throughout the latter part of thetwentieth century (O’Shea 2007a). Hence the formalnaming of the taxon as Leiopython hoserae Hoser2000, by Hoser 2000b was relatively uncontroversialand widely accepted by herpetologists and appearingin numerous relevant publications including forexample Allison (2006) and O’Shea (2008).

The division of serpent taxa separated by the maincentral range of New Guinea, was not just done withregards to the genus Leiopython.

Hoser 1998 did a similar split for the snakes of thegenus Acanthophis, erecting a new species (A.barnetti) for those found north of the main range, thatuntil then were undescribed and also long recognisedas a distinct species (see O’Shea 1996, p. 158).

Rawlings and Donnellan (2003) did the same for theGreen Pythons (Chondropython viridis) placed by themin the genus “Morelia”, with species names alreadyavailable for north and south populations.

Harvey et. al. looked at MtDNA of the Scrub Pythons(the “amethistina” species complex, which they placedin “Morelia”) and in line with the published results forthis species complex in Hoser 2000b decided thatthere were grounds to declare those north of the rangea different species level taxon to those from the south.

(As stated in Hoser 2000b, Hoser 2000b, deferrednaming these snakes pending the paper beingpublished by Harvey et. al., stating “This author hadassigned names to forms previously regarded as A.amethistina that is found in Islands to the north-westand south-west of New Guinea, however they werewithdrawn from this paper after it became apparentthat David Barker and others were similarly subdividingthe genus Austroliasis as it is described here.”)

Notwithstanding this statement and the fact that boththis paper and Harvey et. al. (including David Barker)were published in 2000, this didn’t stop a habitual liarand long-term adversary of Raymond Hoser, Mr. JohnWeigel from posting on the “australianherps” list serverin 2001 the false statement that Raymond Hoser wasplotting to “steal” naming rights for those taxa fromBarker at. al.. Those posts remain on the internet asof 2008.

In line with Harvey et. al.’s results for “Moreliaamethistina” in terms of northern New Guineaspecimens being assignable to a single species leveltaxon (p. 171 their paper, see figs A, B, and C) , Hoser,

2000b independently did the same for the pythonsassigned to the taxon L. albertisi in that all from themirroring region were assigned to the taxon albertisi.

Noting that the geographical and physical barriersaffecting the genera Acanthophis (see Hoser 1998),“Morelia viridis” (see Rawlings and Donnellan 2003),“Morelia amethistina” (see Harvey et. al. 2000) andLeiopython (see Hoser 2000b) were apparently oneand the same, it was totally expected that all fourstudies, across two (mainly) terrestrial snake families,demonstrated species splits broadly along the sameregions (and movement barriers), even though allstudies were on different taxa and used quite differentmaterials and methods to arrive at essentially the sameresults.

These results are notable in that while it’d bereasonable to infer that the python taxon “amethistina”may be larger and perhaps more mobile than “L.albertisi” (see Harvey et. al.’s comments for their new“amethistina” taxon), studies across Australia forAcanthophis (NSW and WA studies by Hoser,summarised in Hoser 2002), have indicated thesesnakes to be considerably less mobile and thereforemore prone to speciation than for other pythons (whichwould by all known measures include Leiopython), andyet to date, no island specific population of Acanthophisfor Biak has been described or named.

The two most outlying populations of Leiopythonalbertisi, namely those from the (south) easternextreme and those from the northern extreme, bothaway from the (far west located) type localities for bothalbertisi and gracilis, were designated subspeciesstatus on the basis of minor head scalation and otherdifferences by Hoser 2000b (as redefined and agreedby Schleip 2008) and with limited sample sizes, andon the basis of a continuous distribution at the presenttime and/or very recent past (within the last 12,000years).

At the time (2000) and even now, Hoser (this author)was of the view that not enough evidence warrantedsplitting of those populations to the species level.

Until end 2008, the Hoser 2000b divisions of the genusLeiopython were generally recognised byherpetologists with an interest in Leiopython.

Leiopython hoserae Hoser 2000 was readily adoptedby authors (e.g. Allison, 2007, O’Shea 2007b andothers), while no publishing authors regarded anyregional races of L. albertisi (the two namedsubspecies) as being of distinct species and not onesingle publication appeared in print recognising ornaming those variants as species, even to the extentof identifying different populations.

THE TRUTH HATERS

Dissent in terms of the Hoser taxonomy was onlyvoiced by a group known as the “truth haters” or “the



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Hoser critics”, centred on two men, namely a serialwildlife smuggler David John Williams and his closefriend Wolfgang Wüster a Wales based “academic”at Bangor University with a history of publishing sloppywork.

Wulf Schleip, author of Schleip 2008 is a close friendof the above pair.

Relevant here is that like them, he’s also had too muchspare time on his hands and through his own websitecreated in 2001 and others he visits and posts on viawebforums, he has joined in the anti-truth and hatecampaign by means of non-stop posts adverse ofHoser wherever he felt his arguments would gaintraction.

None of their continual barrage of criticisms has hada grain of merit. However using their excess amountsof spare time and the near limitless resources of theinternet, these man have managed to wage acampaign against Hoser of a scale and magnitude thatis truly amazing. Recruiting a small-band of misfits,with the ability to repeatedly post under false namesand to censor and edit internet sites they control, thesemen have at times created a veneer and perceptionthat there is widespread disagreement with the variousHoser taxonomy papers (and anything else to do with“Hoser”, including the extremely popular venomoid(surgically devenomized) snakes) when the realityamong qualified practicing herpetologists has beenvery different (Hoser 2004c).

By and large the Hoser taxonomy has been very routineand uncontroversial and the divisions at species levelgenerally been of well-defined taxa, conservativelydefinable via a myriad of criteria.

No one has petitioned the ICZN in relation to any ofthe Hoser papers, indicating a general lack of concernin terms of the taxonomy and nomenclature.

Outside the group of people to be described in moredetail below, the general perception of “Hosertaxonomy” has been that it is at times too conservative,befitting the position of a “lumper” as opposed to a“splitter”, as voiced by Wells (2002), the result beingfurther splits of taxa examined by Hoser beingproposed by other authors, including one may supposeSchleip (2008), although as this paper shows shortly,the professed views of Schleip cannot be found to beconsistent, credible or for that matter even honestlyheld by Schleip himself.

THE ORIGINAL “TRUTH HATER” THE CONVICTEDREPTILE SMUGGLER DAVID JOHN WILLIAMS

In his view his reason to hate “Hoser” was justified onthe basis that he was adversely named in both“Smuggled” books, (Hoser 1993 and Hoser 1996) andthat forms the original basis of his ongoing hatred sincethen, which has over time expanded.

While the material in the book was true and correct as

easily confirmed by publicly available court records(see Magistrate’s Court of Queensland 1997), Williamshas held the grudge against Hoser and pursued itruthlessly and without scruple.

David John Williams, posting on the internet as“Toxinologist” and other names is a man with numerousserious convictions for animal cruelty and wildlifesmuggling (see for example a mere fraction of thenumber of his crimes and convictions in the fulltranscripts of Magistrates Court of Queensland (1997).

Williams and his close friend Wolfgang Wüster haveboth been guilty or party to a serious case of scientificfraud as detailed by Hoser 2001a and Hoser 2001b.

That scientific fraud revolved around an improperlyaltered (on at least three occasions) “online” paperthat was published in the first instance as an allegedcritique of the description of Pailsus pailsi Hoser 1998.

Since then, his alleged co-conspirator in the fraud BrianStarkey (listed by Williams as a junior co-author of thefraudulent and ever-changing online paper Williamsand Starkey (1999 – three versions, listed here as “a’,“b” and “c”)), has stated that he had no part in thefraud and that Williams had without his permissionincluded his name as co-author in the fraudulentlyaltered paper and in fact printed material that both menknew was patently untrue.

The ill-fated paper did in it’s first incarnations claimthat the newly described species “Pailsus pailsi Hoser1998” was in fact nothing more than a small orunderfed Mulga Snake Cannia (“Pseudechis”)australis. The claim was underpinned by somestatistical gymnastics not unlike some of those seenin the 2008 Schleip paper.

Williams altered and reposted the paper at least threetimes (cited herein as Williams and Starkey 1999a,1999b and 1999c), the varied versions being dutifullydownloaded by myself and others and now archivedand accessible in a single file on the internet as part ofthe historical record of the fraud, or alternativelyseparately from the website http://www.smuggled.com/Sland1.htm as links to their originally published forms.

The final altered version of the paper, that had it’spublication date post-dated effectively reversed theoriginal claims about Pailsus and falsely inferredWilliams was set to describe the New Guinea taxon,rossignollii, actually described and named in Hoser2000a with the publication Hoser 2000a, long predatingthe first actual uploading and posting in January 2001of Williams and Starkey (1999), version “c”.

Williams then made false claims on“www.kingsnake.com” and the internet chat forum“australianherps” along the lines that Hoser had stolenhis “naming rights” to the New Guinea taxon, laterchanging it to the claim that Hoser had sought to doso, but inadvertently named another taxon (namely



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

rossignollii), with Williams still about to name yetanother unnamed taxon, for which fortuitously hisenemy Hoser did not have access to the specimens.

In spite of Williams making these claims in 2000 and2001, as of 2008 he has failed to identify or name anysuch taxon, even though in 2005, he coauthored apaper ostensibly on the taxonomy of the “Pailsus”/”Pseudechis” group of snakes (Wüster at. al. 2005).That paper did not name any new taxa anywhere!

This again shows the unreliability of statements ormaterial published that Williams and his associateswrite.

As it happens, Williams had nothing whatsoever to dowith the initial discovery or naming of the Pailsusrossignollii taxon (see Hoser 2000a), although in abook he published in 2005 (Williams et. al. 2005), hedid recognise it as valid taxon that had been properlynamed by Hoser in Hoser 2000a (see pages 58, 59and the distribution map in the Williams book, nowidentifying the rossignollii taxon as also occurring inPNG in the alleged region of his allegedly undescribedsimilar taxon).

This was significant in itself as it reversed opposingdogma as published by his close associate Wüsterat. al. (2001) to the effect that Pailsus rossignollii waseither “nomen nudem” (see the definition of the termin ICZN (1999), or Pailsus rossignollii was alternativelynot a valid taxon, that had in turn been widely repostedand cited by Williams as “fact”.

Notably however, while Williams chose to use theHoser material in his book (on venomous species fromNew Guinea), and in spite of an extensive bibliography,Williams chose to deliberately exclude any Hoserpublications from his references list in spite of severalbeing key publications on the relevant groups of snakesand yet he chose to cite his own and Wüster’spublications (post-dating the Hoser ones by someyears) that had committed the morally reprehensiblesin of plagiarising the key Hoser results (see below).

However in spite of the above facts relating to thedescription of the two Hoser Pailsus species in 1998and 2000, Brian Starkey actually had no role in thefalse claims made in the ever-morphing paper originallypublished and dated from 1999 (Williams and Starkey1999a), (AKA version 1). In 2008, the “alleged” or“stated” co-author Brian Starkey wrote in an e-mail ofthat ill-fated 1999 paper that:

“I had absolutely nothing to do with timealteration and the reposting on web.

If fact I was in two minds about the wholepaper, without even seeing a specimen ofpailus. I didn’t want to pass judgement until Ihad got out there and looked for

myself. I did four trips asap to the area andfound a couple of specimens 40-50 km from

Cloncurry. I knew as soon as I saw my firstDOR, that you were right!

When I showed David a few pic’s and closeups he knew too! Then I got a live specimenamongst a small group of rocks, so fast Inearly lost it. I have probably

seen about 3 live and 4-5 DOR specimens in9 or more trips. I wish we didn’t jump the gun.

But David wrote the paper and added myname. I never actually wrote a word, althoughhe may have quoted things I said during phoneconversations.

And that’s the truth.”

In other words, Williams had knowingly published falseinformation and conclusions to try to convince thirdparties of his lie that Pailsus pailsi Hoser 1998 wasnot a valid taxon.

Williams has had an axe to grind against Hoser andused it constantly to attack my credibility, after beingadversely named in both “Smuggled” books, (Hoser1993, 1996).

Those books detailed numerous cases of animalcruelty and reptile smuggling involving Williams in theperiods predating publication of both books. For allcases referred to in the books, he was ultimatelycharged, convicted and fined by the Australian orQueensland governments, the last relevant case beingfinalized in 1997 for extreme cruelty to live reptiles andsmuggling-related matters.

Himself and his close associates, including a so-calledacademic named Wolfgang Wüster from a Universityin Wales, UK, have since spent much of their paidtime stalking the internet telling people not to use so-called “Hoser names”.

They have done this while simultaneously committingthe ethically repugnant crime of plagiarising Hoserresearch papers and republishing the results in theirown later publications (e.g. Williams. et. al. 2005,Wüster, et. al. 2005), while consistently failing toappropriately cite or acknowledge the original sourceof the “findings” (also see Williams, Wüster and Fry2006).

A close friend of theirs, with a similar “anti-Hoser”position was a self-admitted “amateur herpetologist”(see text at: http://leiopython.de/en/vita.htmldownloaded on 28 December 2008, or last words page19, Schleip 2008a) by the name of Wulf Schleip, whoin the period after 2001, took a strong interest in thesnakes of the genus Leiopython which he had as “pets,and to his obvious dislike found that one of just twonamed and obvious species in the genus was“Leiopython hoserae”.

Wüster’s best known critique of the “Hoser taxonomy”was a paper he shopped to various journals before it



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

got through a new and gullible editor at LitteraturaSerpentium in 2001. The paper has since been postedby Wüster and all other “Hoser haters” widely over theweb and elsewhere to further their cause, includingby Williams, Schleip and others. However all thecentral arguments in the paper (Wüster et. al. 2001,and later ones repeating the same or similar lies) havelong since been shown to be false (see for exampleHoser 2001a, 2001b, in direct reference to the Wüsteret. al. piece, or alternatively Kuch, et. al. 2005,Rawlings et. al. 2008 and others who in turn rebut thefalse claims by Wüster et. al. relating to the Hosertaxonomy), but that has never stopped these men fromrepeating, embellishing and further exaggerating theirlies and false claims on internet posts and even hard-copy publications, including for example (Williams,Wüster and Fry 2006).

Williams and Wüster have a history of “shopping” their“papers” through friendly and not so friendly editors topublish material that under normal circumstanceswould never pass even the most basic of editorialprocesses in anything masquerading as “scientificliterature”.

Simultaneously they have phoned and written to journaleditors making false claims, threats and even sendinglegal letters, trying to harass and intimidate editors notto publish material correcting their lies. Affected journaleditors include those from Crocodilian, Herptile,Litteratura Serpentium, Boydii, Monitor and others aswell as even the Herald-Sun newspaper in Melbourne.

The latter received numerous threats and then even aletter (later passed to myself) after the newspaperpublished a world first photo of Raymond Hoser “freehandling” a large number of the world’s top fourdeadliest snakes (Parademansia microlepidota,Oxyuranus scutellatus, Pseudonaja textilis andNotechis scutatus), that happened to be the world’sfirst venomoids of those taxa (Hoser 2004b), eventhough the accompanying captions and stories hadno relevance or references to Williams, Wüster or theirassociates or in theory gave them any reason tocontact the newspaper.

This is mentioned merely to indicate the obsessivenessand extent of the campaign against Hoser interestsby these men and the degree to which they actively“stalk” and try to counter any favourable mentions of“Hoser” in any context.

FURTHER FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY BY THECONVICTED REPTILE SMUGGLER DAVIDWILLIAMS

This is detailed here due to the fact that Schleip hasby his own admissions in his 2008 paper workedclosely with this convicted conman and that it appearshe employs similar morals.

In a widely reported statement made by a PNG

Pharmacist, Richard McGuiness in 2008, DavidWilliams also stole dozens of vials of snake anti-venomfrom government stores when not authorised to doso.

Noting the serious ongoing shortage of such anti-venom in PNG, the obvious outcome would be anincrease in the number of lives lost to snakebite in acountry where annual deaths are measured in thethousands.

Williams denied re-selling the anti-venom on the black-market, instead stating that he had used the missingvials for live-saving work, as in treating bite victims.

The explanation was rubbished by McGuiness whostated that there was no evidence to back up theWilliams claims.

To date Williams has not provided any detailedexplanation to rebut the McGuiness claims.

Furthermore, Williams had been shown on the ABCTV programme “Foreign Correspondent”masquerading as “Dr”, David Williams even thoughhe was not a medical practitioner of any form.Furthermore he had no PhD or other similarqualification allowing him to use the title “Dr” to describehimself in the footage filmed at end 2007 and screenedin early 2008.

Several news reports in PNG and Australia also sawWilliams identified as being involved in a fraudulentact of improperly arranging the import of Indian anti-venom, ostensibly to be used to treat snakebites inNew Guinea.

Such anti-venom is useless on PNG snakes and PNG,Port Moresby City Pharmacy boss Mahesh Patelcondemned Williams and his agents for promoting it’suse or availability in New Guinea, saying that hisactivities could put lives at risk (see Marshall (2008)and material cited therein and Staff Reporters 2008)).

At the time the debacle emerged of the improperimportation of the wrong anti-venom emerged, DavidWilliams justified the importation and ordering the anti-venom on the basis he was planning a trip to regionsto the west where such anti-venom may work on someof the local species and hence was a better alternativeto having nothing.

EARLIER INCIDENTS INVOLVING REPTILESMUGGLER DAVID WILLIAMS

Williams was also the principal of a now defunctenterprise called “Austoxin”.

Set-up in around 1994/6 ostensibly to save lives inNew Guinea by supposedly supplying venom to makeanti-venom, the enterprise actually turned out to be ahighly organised reptile smuggling racket that intendedto illegally send reptiles out of the country to supply anillegal global reptile trade.

When it collapsed, the debacle was widely reported in



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

the PNG and Australian tabloid media at the time andlabelled potentially the largest reptile smuggling racketin PNG history with the unwitting involvement of thethen Deputy PM who was also apparently duped byWilliams.

Williams blamed the debacle on his business partnerWayne Lewis, who in turn blamed Williams.

Regardless of who was to blame, Williams fled thecountry.

In a widely circulated statement made on 17 December2007 (Lewis 2007a), Lewis wrote:

“My name is Wayne Lewis and I was one ofthe founding Directors of Austoxin

P/L and a Director of Austoxin (PNG) Ltd. Iran the exhibits in shopping

centre’s in Australia during the 94/95 periodand made ALL of Williams

reptile transactions on his behalf. I then spenta year in Port Moresby in

total limbo both during and after Williams fellout with Ed Jones, John

Ellsworth and Chris Hiaveta the then deputyPM of PNG. A bit of research

will comfirm these facts.

I can attest to all of Williams illegaltransactions during the period as

well as drug importation from PNG to Australiaby someone who I’ve read is

now Williams business partner.”

A letter by Lewis sent via e-mail and hard copy, dated18 December 2007 (Lewis 2007b) sent to theAustralian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), not widelydisseminated is printed below for the benefit of thepublic record.

So that I am not accused of misquoting the letter, it isreproduced in full.

“From: Rocky Guyforfun<[email protected]>

Date: 18 Dec 2007 22:18

Subject: URGENT. Upcoming episode relatingto DAVID WILLIAMS in PNG.

To:

[email protected]

Dear Sirs.

This is a rather long winded summary but Iimplore you to read it

thoroughly.

This is a basic narration of my associationswith DAVID JOHN WILLIAMS that

involves both conspired and direct criminalactivity. I have

original documentation to prove any and allclaims made in this

correspondence.

I have been following with keen interest theactivities of David John

Williams and in particular the presssurrounding his project in Papua New

Guinea. I understand that your program isdedicating time to an episode on

the above mentioned. I feel it necessary, afterviewing a 60 Minutes episode

recently on the same subject, to raiseconcerns regarding the portrayal of

Williams as an all round nice guy dedicatedto the salvation of the people

of PNG with regard to snakebite..

I was involved with Williams in a venture inthe mid nineties called

Austoxin Pty. Ltd and Austoxin (PNG) Ltd. Theprimary aim of the companies

was to further the research of venomcomponents for medical applications.

Further aims were to provide educationaldisplays to the public and schools.

A partnership was entered into with SydneyUniversity under the direction of

Prof. Richard Kristopherson. (spelling error)to provide whole dried venom

for research purposes. The company recruitednumerous private shareholders

and other stake holders. The foundingdirectors were David Williams, Wayne

Lewis and Laurie Haddrick. All of Cairns, Qld.The company started way under

capitalized and things went down hill fastfinancially. Williams basically

lived from the company bank accounts andthe company premises were always up

market residential rental properties. I was incharge of the travelling

displays and PNG company. I was lateraccused of fraud by Williams and

slandered in emails by him at the time withregard to the PNG company. All

since proven false.

The PNG company was incorporated withWilliams, Lewis and John Ellsworth as

directors. The aim of this company was tocollect animals to produce venom

for both the World Health Organization and



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Sydney University. Also the

export of native fauna to the USA through anAmerican fauna dealer Ed Jones

was planned and implemented. The plan wasto get PNG nationals to capture

large quantities of native reptiles, amphibiansand mammals for dispatch to

the USA via Jones. Initially this was to be donein accordance with the

CITES agreement at the time and the thenDeputy PM. Chris Hiaveta was the

major financier and was able to pull stringswhen questions were asked. In

the end no animals were sent to the USA asWilliams fell out with Hiaveta’s

representative Ellsworth and Jones over theexport of animals. Williams and

Jones were for the export.

Hiaveta and Ellsworth were against due tomounting political pressures in

PNG and the Police Superannuation Fundscandal that Hiaveta was embroiled

in.

I ran the PNG company and was under thedirect instruction of Williams and

Jones. Initially enclosures were sent fromAustralia and set up in a Port

Moresby warehouse. Numerous specimenswere caught by the initial group of

Australian expats including Williams, Lewis,Brian Starkey. Specimens

included were Chondropythons, CarpetSnakes, Northern Tree Snakes, Papuan

Taipans, Small Eyed Snakes, Monitors andGekkos. All of which I still have

photographs of inside the enclosures at thePNG warehouse. Only two of those

species are of any use for venom research.Williams instructions to me upon

departure to PNG was to get the export of thereptiles moving as fast as

possible to provide funding for the Australianoperation which by that stage

was in dire straits financially.

The fact that PNG did not allow the export ofnative fauna under the CITES

agreement was generally considered byWilliams et al something to be

overcome by Hiaveta. I was recruited byEllsworth and Hiaveta to continue

the PNG operation without the export side ofit. However due to family

health issues in Australia I returned to Australialeaving Austoxin and

severing any and all association with Williams.I was a very naive person to

be involved in such a level of business at thetime and relied on Williams

apparent expertise. This was found to bemisplaced trust as with Williams

appearances are often deceptive.

Williams may be on a noble crusade thesedays however his past is

exceptionally blemished with criminal offencesagainst fauna and trade in

fauna in Australia. I acted as his middle manin the mid nineties and made

numerous illegal reptile sales on his behalf,using his licence, to some

prominent amateur herpetologist in QLD andVictoria. He swapped Dept. of

Environment and Heritage implants from hiscaptive bred animals to wild

caught specimens and sold these and theirwild caught offspring, though me,

on numerous occasions. I was prosecuted bythe DEH in 1995 for illegal

movement of Williams animals, on his license,to a movie shoot for the movie

All Men Are Liars. My signature is on allmovement documents from 1994 to

mid 1996. Williams himself was convicted ofcruelty charges in 1997 relating

to rotting animals found in the former Austoxinwarehouse in Bolton St

Cairns by a DEH raid. I was interviewed byMike Chepp from DEH and provided

my opinions on the state of the animals at thetime. Williams was fined some

$7500 and a conviction recorded.

David Williams is a very personable chap whoexudes confidence and

sincerity, however I have seen the other sideof his persona and believe me,

though he may well be giving his fullcommitment to his research in PNG, he

is capable of great deception and has alwaysbeen driven by his ego and need

for professional recognition. This overrides allother aspects of David.



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

I can be contacted on this email address

Your sincerelyWayne Lewis.”

Also obtained was a raft of supporting documents,including many from David Williams himself, whichconfirmed the detail of the above, including thatWilliams had unsuccessfully raised obscure legalarguments as an appeal defense against hisconvictions and fines for culpable cruelty to reptilesand smuggling (Williams 1997). The appeal failed withall fines and penalties being re-imposed.

Before the Austoxin debacle, David Williams had pledguilty in Australia to smuggling reptiles in the post inan unrelated incident.

In another incident, David Williams went to a companytrading as “Network Rentals and Rent A Ute”, wherehe hired a truck to use for a reptile demonstration.According to a statement by a debt collector,

“The truck was reported stolen after a fewweeks, the police caught Williams

driving it, but did not do anything as he paidby cheque and it bounced so

they said it was a civil matter now.”

At the end, Williams wasn’t pursued for the debt as helacked assets and the truck itself had been recoveredintact.

See Woolf (2008) for details.

The details of these and other Williams incidents areall beyond the scope of this paper, but readilyaccessible via court files, news clips of the relevanttimes.

A mere fraction of these are listed in the bibliographiesin Hoser (1993) and Hoser (1996).

HOLIDAY INN COMPETITION AND VOTE RIGGINGEXPOSED

At end 2007 and early 2008 David Williams decidedto promote himself as some kind of unsung hero,saving people from death by Snakebite in Papua NewGuinea.

He successfully got funds from the “Australian VenomReearch Unit” (AVRU), in Melbourne for what are bestdescribed as “collecting trips” and the like.

He solicited and duped the ABC TV’s “ForeignCorespondent” into doing a favourable story about himthat was later shown to be fraudulent (see elsewherein this paper), including what a number ofherpetologists speculated was the alleged faking of aTaipan bite (the bite was not shown on camera,immediately arousing suspicions as every other partof the alleged event was shown and Williams madean apparent near “instant” recovery by the next day,and made inconsistent statements in terms ofavailability of anti-venom on the ABC broadcast and

on internet forums includingwww.aussiereptilekeeper.com, the latter of which hassaid he had spare stored at his facility).

Then there was the already mentioned making falsestatements to acquire a special order of Indian snakeanti-venom for resale in PNG, even though it was ofno use to local species.

Peter Lloyd, an ABC work colleague of the reporterwho worked with Williams in the New Guinea story,was shortly after, in July 2008 caught and prosecutedfor Drug Trafficking in Singapore. He pled guilty tothree drug-related offences, including possessing 0.41grams of methamphetamine, or “ice” and wassentenced to 10 months’ jail on 2 December 2008(Meade 2008).

Also following the making of the ABC report, Williamswas also exposed for improper conduct elsewhere aspart of his broad campaign to masquerade as a life-saving hero from New Guinea.

In early 2008, Williams and associates, WolfgangWüster, Wulf Schleip, Al Coritz and Mark O’Sheaspammed internet sites and most major internet reptileforums seeking people to vote for him as a so-called“Everyday hero” in a contest where the winner got afree all inclusive holiday at a hotel run by the HolidayInn group valued by them at US$20,000.00.

Wüster posted on UK sites and others including http://www.reptileforums.co.uk inviting reptile enthusiasts topost multiple votes for Williams (see Wüster 2008)being touted as “one of us”.

Williams and the same crew that usually devote theirendless hours of spare time attacking myself had founda new cause to promote and as their actions didn’timpinge on me, it was a useful diversion for them inmy view.

My only regret is that the competition didn’t run forseveral years!

The history of the competition is thankfully recordedon the archived posts of the many reptile forums easilysearchable via the internet and not yet deleted oredited.

As the competition progressed Williams found himselfbeing outvoted by another man from Pakistan and soWilliams and others stepped up the campaign for votescontinuing to call for people to register multiple votesand even encouraging people to register fake e-mailaddresses solely to bolster votes for Williams.

One of Wüster’s students posting under the name of“Gaboon” on http://www.reptileforums.co.uk evensought higher marks from his University teacher(Wüster) if he voted for Williams (Gaboon 2008).

The Gaboon post followed numerous repeated pleasfor assistance by Wüster on the same forum andothers.



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

On the UK forum there was a general disinterest, soWüster repeatedly had to “bump” the thread to makeit seen (in at least one case merely posting the word“bump”), or otherwise it’d have dropped off the mainfront page of the site, making the thread less likely tobe seen by third parties.

As the contest drew to a close Williams sent amessage out, also reposted by his helpers, includingWüster at: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk,

Which read:

“I am especially grateful to my friends ShaneHunter from ARK in Australia, Mark (O’Shea)and Wolfgang in the UK, Al Coritz and ChrisHarper in the USA, and Wulf Schlep fromEurope, who promoted this contest fiercely,spending many long hours at the keyboard oron the phone to mates stirring up interest.”

However it appears that the help wasn’t all aboveboard, with Williams actually being disqualified for voterigging as identified by the Hotel Chain running thecontest.

In order to beat the main competitor, Williams orsomeone working on his behalf had illegally inflatedhis vote tally near the end by improperly adding amassive 4,000 votes in order to get him over the lineas alleged “winner”.

Based on a separate post by Williams on http://www.reptileforums.co.uk (and many others) he impliedthat the fraudulent votes had come from a singlecomputer (see Williams 2008), which seems to bepatently obvious in hindsight, especially noting the skillsin false and cross-posting Williams and associates hasdeveloped over the preceding ten years.

It also emerged that Williams also faced potentialdisqualification for making a false claim about himselfon the Hotel chain’s own website http://w w w . h o l i d a y i n n e v e r y d a y h e r o e s . c o m /readmore.aspx?id=57&page=1 which also happenedto be against the Hotel chain’s guidelines

As mentioned before, working with Williams in thisfraudulent debacle were his close friends, WolfgangWüster, Mark O’Shea, Wulf Schleip, Shane Hunterand Al Coritz.

Coritz even went to the extent of filming and posting avideo on “youtube” (at: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QzgluS-tIKc) of him ranting on, solely for thepurpose of calling on other reptile enthusiasts to votefor Williams.

Coritz is better known to herpetologists for the squalidconditions he kept a wild-caught Taipan throughanother video he posted on “Youtube” at: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ujBiDuIoYgM.

This shows a thin snake at his home covered in exo-parasites, as a result having failed to shed properly in

an unventilated cage replete with an inappropriateturned up and spilt water bowl, creating abacteriological cocktail of a nightmare as the by-product it is shown mixed with an inappropriately wetsubstrate and uncleaned faecal matter strewn acrossthe cage in a room with loose electrical wires forminga potential death trap for both snake and handler!

While one may ask what the relevance of this hotelcompetition fraud has to do with reptile taxonomy andthe like, it goes to show how this group of men will useimproper means to peddle views, including to makeout that they are more widespread than is actually thecase.

In the case of the Hotel competition, Williams managedto garner at least 4,000 votes for himself, with theobvious aim and intention to mislead innocent personsand to form a false perception that there was agroundswell of independent people in support of him,which was never the case.

His actual support base was at best a mere handful ofpeople.

There is absolutely no doubt at all that followingpublication of this paper that Williams, Schleip andWüster will post material contrary to the facts and viewsthat are in this paper including under fake ID’s, as wellas use their influence to improperly censor outbalancing viewpoints on forums that they control.

This will be done in order to lead to a false perceptionthat their views are those of the majority ofherpetologists, which quite clearly they never havebeen.

SUCCESS BY SCHLEIP, WÜSTER AND WILLIAMSIN MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNSUnfortunately these men continue to run their warpedcampaigns because at times they do have a degreeof success and it is this level of success that is causefor concern, as it relies on tactics of bullying andcensorship, rather than persuasive and validarguments.

To give an accurate appraisal and motive for theirimproper actions, some further instances of theiractions should be related.

The major taxonomic act of Hoser 2004a was theerection of a genus for the reticulatus pythons,transferring them from “Python” to a new genus,“Broghammerus Hoser 2004”.

Essentially adopting diagnostic characters derivedfrom earlier authors, most notably McDowell (1975),the most notable thing about the designation was thatno one had attempted it earlier, which was point raisedby a number of independent commentators.

The morphological and behavioural differencesbetween the Reticulated and Indian/Burmese pythonsis stark and for them to be placed in separate genera



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

made eminent sense.

Following publication of Hoser 2004a, Schleip andWüster true to usual form stalked the internet in usualfashion and bullied people into not using the nameBroghammerus, including in places likewww.kingsnake.com and elsewhere.

On 24 July 2004, I posted at http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,520074(Hoser, 2004d) advising merely of the publication inaccordance with the ICZN rules.

The relevant section is:

“Recommendation 8A. Wide dissemination.Authors have a responsibility to ensure thatnew scientific names, nomenclatural acts, andinformation likely to affect nomenclature aremade widely known.”

Immediately, Schleip, made repeated posts here andelsewhere specifically discouraging persons fromusing Broghammerus, but without providing anysensible reasons for the position. (See Schleip 2004b,2004c).

Schleip of course was joined by Wüster on the sameforum, who supported his position in favour of non-usage of Broghammerus, again without providing anysensible reason, but nevertheless makingconsiderable noise, (see Wüster 2004a and 2004b asexamples) with numerous similar posts on other sitesmade by both men, whenever reference was madeeither to the Hoser paper or the name Broghammerus.As a result of their bullying and vigilance in stiflingdissent, the name did not get widespread usage.

Google searches as of early 2008, showed that withoutexception, whenever the name “Broghammerus” wasraised on any internet forum (anywhere in the world),Schleip, Williams and Wüster would descend on thethread to condemn use of the name and flame andbully anyone who supported it, including forcingsupportive posts to be deleted, in order to present afalse view that the use of Broghammerus was notgenerally supported.

The men would invariably refer in their posts to theonline version of Wüster et. al. 2001, posted onWüster’s own university-funded website, the alleged(and long discredited) facts in the paper beingjustification not to use Hoser-names.

In 2008, Rawlings et. al. independently and withoutany input from Hoser, published their own paper thatusing mtDNA data, not surprisingly confirmed theHoser 2004a position and adopted the use ofBroghammerus, extending it to include timorensis (ataxon with which I have little expertise), that actionbeing the significant taxonomic move in the paper.

Noting that Wüster and Williams have in the past beenruthless in stopping publications in favour of the Hoser

positions, including harassing and intimidating journaleditors, it’s fair to assume that neither were aware ofthe paper’s imminent publication or the centralconclusions.

None of, Wüster, Williams, Schleip or close associates,Fry, Coritz, (Peter) Mirtschin or O’Shea are listed inany way as being consulted or assisting in the paperin the acknowledgements, which is notable, as hadany been aware of the paper, they’d almost certainlyhave tried to stop it’s publication as they have donepreviously.

This paper effectively undermined the Wüster et. al.claims that “Hoser’ was a useless and cluelessamateur (Wüster et. al. 2001), who’s taxonomy shouldbe forcibly suppressed and ignored (again see Wüsteret. al. 2001), thereby leading other herpetologists toaccept the Rawlings et. al. position and adoptBroghammerus for the reticulatus group.

Wüster, Schleip and Williams continued to stalk theweb and “flaming” anyone who dared use the term“Broghammerus” including through the use ofassumed names, but eventually the tide becameoverwhelming, as had occurred some years earlier,when Wüster had fought a losing battle against theacceptance of Acanthophis wellsi Hoser 1998 (seedetails of Wüster’s campaign about this in Hoser2001b).

The comments during this campaign were to say theleast improper, like for example:

“Raymond Hoser should be banned fromEVER having a scientific descriptionconsidered as valid”,

posted anonymously on: http://www.albertarepti lesociety.org/forum/archive/index.php?t-963.html on 23 Feb 2008, or a post byWüster (“in person” this time) on 2 December 2008on an obscure South African reptile forum at: http://w w w . s a r e p t i l e s . c o . z a / f o r u m /viewtopic.php?f=5&p=104864 where he said that he’dnever in his life use the term “Broghammerus”, (Wüster2004c).

There is no doubt that as for other Hoser-named taxathat manage to gain widespread acceptance in spiteof the bullying and misinformation by Wüster/Schleip/Williams, their campaign of hatred will descend to theusual mud-slinging and false claims.

These will be along the lines that Raymond Hoser stoleall the research work out of someone else’s filingcabinet and deliberately “scooped” them in naming thetaxon/taxa before they could do so.

THE HISTORY OF THE WEBSITEWWW.LEIOPYTHON.DE

In 2001, a private snake hobbyist by the name of WulfSchleip from Germany, created the websitewww.leiopython.de. Here he professed to disseminate



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

information on the genus Leiopython, which happenedto be the genus/species of snake he was keeping atthe time.

At first his site recognised both taxa (albertisi andhoserae) as different species, which was in line withaccepted taxonomy of 2001, noting that Hoser (2000b)had in the case of the latter, merely formalized a longrecognised species arrangement.

Schleip gave accounts of both as different species,which was appropriate for a website purporting to bean up-to-date reference for the genus.

Unfortunately, and presumably as a result of hisfrequenting similar internet chat groups to theconvicted smuggler David Williams, Schleip soonbecame a close friend and associate of him andWüster, generally offering support to Williamswhenever he “flamed’ or attacked others and of coursein the ill-fated Hotel Competition detailed above.

Significantly in the context of this paper, from at least2004, and after a series of posts on webforums,including “www.kingsnake.com” by Wulfgang Wüsterand convicted smuggler David Williams, Schleipamended his site to deny the legitimacy of the taxonhoserae, variously declaring it “nomen nudem” innumerous places and also stating that the southernblack “race” regularly climbed the central range of NewGuinea to hybridise with the Northern “race” of L.albertisi (Schleip 2007b).

Put simply, he joined the David Williams campaign oflies and hate against “Hoser”.

By way of example, in a post to http://www.herpbreeder.com/ Schleip also denied theexistence of L. hoserae, going so far as to infer thathe had mtDNA evidence that didn’t support the Hoser2000b designation (Schleip 2004).

Based on the mtDNA material in the Schleip 2008paper, we now know his 2004 statement to be totallydishonest, which must therefore make everything elseSchleip writes similarly questionable and worthy ofcloser assessment before accepted as “correct” aswould commonly be the place after a sizeabletaxonomic treatise is published.

While either of Schleip’s “new” 2004 concepts arepatently ridiculous, there was no means or for thatmatter reason for myself to try to change or removethe offending material.

The internet is full of questionable material, and interms of Schleip’s website, it was just one of manybeing run by persons of questionable integrity withundisclosed (to their readers) axes to grind.

Schleip avidly posted on internet forums and elsewherehis consistently negative views of Hoser, on all matters,ranging on taxonomy, venomoid (devenomizedsnakes), wildlife legislation, education and so on.

Schleip also edited the “wikepedia” webpage forLeiopython on many occasions, where he made surethat the view that there was only one species in thegenus was peddled and remained so, even whenothers edited the site to indicate the generally prevailing(post 2000) view that there was two species in thegenus (albertisi and hoserae), giving him theopportunity to edit it back to the single species view.This was at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiopython

and the edit history is publicly available via a link onthe page.

As late as 12 December 2008, that site read as follows:

“Leiopython is a monotypic genus created for the non-venomous python species, L. albertisii, found in NewGuinea. No subspecies are currently recognized.”

For the record, in terms of all the Hoser descriptionsof taxa, they most certainly conformed with the relevant“Rules” as published by the ICZN (ICZN 1999).

Hence the names were all “available”. However neithermyself or anyone else can force anyone to use thoseor any other names to describe given taxa.

Furthermore, while anything is possible, it seemedunlikely to me that a forest-dwelling python would beable to climb extremely high, sometimes snow-cappedhills of the New Guinea central range to find othersnakes to breed with, especially as in over 100 yearsno one has ever found any snake that is apparentlyintermediate or hybrid in any way to the taxa L. albertisiand L. hoserae.

The Schleip website and comments by Wüster,including those he published in Litteratura Serpentiumin 2001, were in the materially relevant times clearlyan attack on Hoser as opposed to any crediblescientific assault on the taxonomy or nomenclature ofthe relevant Hoser papers.

As it happens, all major taxonomic conclusions (andfollowing on nomenclature) of the Hoser papers, havebeen corroborated by independent studies of otherherpetologists and generally been viewed by them asconservative.

The list runs broadly as follows:

Hoser 1998/2002 Acanthophis taxonomy(confirmed by Aplin and Donnellan 1999,Wells 2002, bootlegged and agreed by Fry et.al. 2002 and Wüster et. al. 2005)(also seesupport from Starkey 2008 dating back manyyears)

Hoser 2000b/2003a/2004a Python Taxonomy(confirmed by Rawlings and Donnellan 2003(“Chondropython”), Rawlings, et. al. 2008(“Broghammerus” and other genera), O’Shea2007a, 2007b (“Leiopython”), Schleip 2008(“Leiopython hoserae” and other), Wells 2005



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

(“Morelia” Carpet Pythons))

Hoser 1998/2000a/2001 “Pseudechis” grouptaxonomy (confirmed by Kuch, et. al. 2005,bootlegged and agreed by Wüster et. al. 2005)

Hoser 2001a/2001b Pseudonaja taxonomy(bootlegged and agreed by Williams et. al.2008)

For other Hoser-named taxa, e.g. Tropidechis sadlieriHoser 2003 (Hoser 2003b), which are generally easilyand consistently diagnosed species (there has neverbeen public argument in terms of the originalfindings)(See J. Craig Venter Institute 2008).

Of significance to this paper is that as of late 2008,Schleip’s website was still peddling the line that theHoser taxonomy for the genus Leiopython was wrongand that all could be assigned to a single species.

Also of note is the consistent (opposing Hoser) positionof Schleip (and Williams and Wüster), no matter howabsurd the opposing position actually is.

All three men control websites running anti-Hoserpetitions, the main one as of 2006-8 being one againstRaymond Hoser being allowed to own or possessvenomoid (devenomized) snakes for the purposes ofbeing able to do educational wildlife demonstrationswithout putting the public at risk.

In terms of that petition and websites associated withit, the three men have peddled countless lies, includingmost seriously that the Hoser venomoid snakes haveregenerated venom and are dangerous.

After a video of numerous world’s deadliest snakes,venomoid snakes biting Hoser (with no effect)appeared on “youtube” these men and/or associatespetitioned “youtube” to have the video removed, theactual reason being it made a mockery of their lies.

On 24 December 2008, when I posted material onwebsites calling for an end to the sale and use of “gluetraps” to kill snakes in Australia, the “Hoser haters”posted material on “www.aussiereptilekeeper.com” insupport of the continued use of the traps (see Hunter2008) on the same day, which remained unchallenged(for at least a fortnight) solely on the basis that theposition was opposite to the Hoser one, with Schleipbeing a poster on and official sponsor of the site/server/s at the materially relevant time, including on 28December 2008!

THE SCHLEIP 2008 PAPER ON LEIOPYTHONLate in 2008, Schleip removed all material from hiswebsite.

In a download (dated 7 December) all that was writtenthere was:

“This site is closed for major updates and willbe relaunched in a couple of days!”

(cited here as Schleip 2008c).

The site was in fact reloaded and relaunched on 10December 2008.

The significance of the relaunch was that all hismaterial denying the existence of the taxon L. hoseraewas removed and Schleip had suddenly and withoutappropriate explanation or apology declared thespecies as valid!

The site’s relaunch was based around thesimultaneous (within days prior) publication of his 2008paper, broadly accepting the Hoser taxonomy and inturn “creating” three new species of Brown Leiopythonfrom the northern New Guinea region.

On 28 December 2008, he posted details of his newlypublished paper on Leiopython taxonomy on thewebsite www.aussiereptilekeeper, a site moderated bythe convicted reptile smuggler David John Williams,whose main reason to exist is to attack RaymondHoser (this author) and numerous other places atadvertise his new paper and new “species”.

As inferred earlier, Williams cannot be sued fordefamation due to his lack of assets.

A search of the internet yielded abstracts of the paperonly, (at: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1670%2F06-182R5.1) see Bioone(2008), however I was able to acquire a photocopy ofthe publication through a Museum-based subscriberto the Journal of herpetology.

The abstract was quite definitive in stating it’s basisfor diagnosing and describing new taxa of Leiopython,including mtDNA, which one would reasonably assumewould be for those species that may otherwise have aquestionable diagnosis. However a read of the paperitself had the data revealing a different picture to thatinferred in the abstract and essentially no different tothat of Hoser 2000b.

While the Schleip website (all pages) broadly mirroredhis findings as published in Schleip 2008a (the paperin the Journal of Herpetology), (we’ll call all pages onthe server as of 28 Dec 08 (Schleip 2008b)), therewere a number of notable differences.

The differences in essence were a more vitriolic attackon myself and less editorial discipline leading to hisinadvertent and inconsistent statements includingsome on various webpages stating that all the northernwhite-lipped pythons are of the same species, namely“L. albertisi”!

These points are only raised here to demonstrate thesloppy methodology of Schleip and how motive dictateswhat he writes, as opposed to the facts as they shouldbe written.

Note for example that Schleip made at least foursubstantive changes (edits) to his website/s (at:www.leiopython.de) in December 2008 alone!

He was also apparently active at wikipedia, this time



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

apparently making anonymous edits to webpages forLeiopython. This time however he was changing thepages to indicate all new taxa as recognised in his2008 paper. That Schleip was the editor was revealedvia a reverse IP address search giving the Europeanaddress of his internet gateway and seeing that itmatched his footprint elsewhere on the web.

In fairness to Schleip he could sustain an argumentthat he had suddenly as of end 2008, changed hismind about Leiopython and reversed his tune denyingthe existence of the Hoser-named taxa. This is not ahanging offence, but a proper explanation and apologywould have been ethical.

Also in fairness to Schleip, the ICZN rules do call for“wide dissemination” of taxonomic work, and Schleipcould legitimately claim his stalking the web to (now)promote his published paper fitted this request fromthe ICZN.

However it is prudent to point out the hypocrisy hereas Schleip, Wüster and Williams have put in print manytimes that Hoser’s wide dissemination of taxonomypapers amounts to nothing more than “self promotion”,(see Wüster et. al. 2001, or Williams et. al. 2006) andthen as reposted and promoted on the web at“aussiereptilekeeper” by Schleip.

However even allowing for Schleip’s editorialinconsistencies, complete dishonesty and hypocrisy,the fact remains that Schleip has managed to have ataxonomic paper published.

Regardless of how badly either that or his webpageare written, whether or not his newly “created” speciesare actually valid ultimately turns on the evidence andit is this that is herein assessed and found to be lacking.

THE LEIOPYTHON SPECIESHoser 2000b taxonomy recognised L. albertisi and L.hoserae (the latter) as described in the paper. Twosubspecies, namely L. albertisi bennetorum from aneastern extremity of the range and L. albertisibarkerorum (name amended) from the northernextremity were also formally described and named atthe subspecies level.

At the species level, both the latter are synonyms of L.albertisi.

While as recently as 2007, Schleip repeatedly claimedexpertise on Leiopython and that L. hoserae and theHoser-named subspecies did not exist (see forexample his 2007 Wikipedia edits), in his paperpublished around December 2008 and his website(version end Dec 2008), Schleip accepted that L.hoserae was both a valid taxon and validly named (asin the name available under the ICZN code).

More dramatically, he elevated the “bennetorum” tofull species. True to past form he alleged there wasno basis to separate barkerorum in any way from L.

albertisi and that it was also “nomen nudem” (more onthis aspect later).

None of the above so far made the Schleip papernotable in any way, or for that matter worthy ofcomment. However what was worthy of analysis herewas the dramatic move by Schleip of creating threenew species of Brown Leiopython, namely L.fredparkeri and L. huonensis from the mainland NewGuinea population of L. albertisi and L. biakensis forthe specimens from the Island of Biak.

MtDNA EVIDENCEIn his abstract published and widely disseminated onthe web, Schleip indicates that he has assessed thisto confirm that his division of Leiopython is in factcorrect.

He wrote:

“Additional evidence for some species was obtainedby maximum parsimony and maximum likelihoodanalysis of mitochondial DNA sequences (cytochromeb gene) taken from GenBank. Besides threeconventional taxa, two new mainland species and onenew island species were recognised in accordancewith the evolutionary species concept”

However his paper provides no DNA evidencewhatsoever to separate any of his newly namednorthern taxa from one another or for that matter fromthe nominate race of L. albertisi.The only conclusive mtDNA evidence given by Schleipis in his Figure 4, which shows separation of L. hoseraeHoser 2000 from “L. albertisi” from Madang(summarised also in the text of the second page(second column) of his paper).

While that confirms the taxonomic position of Hoser2000b, in contrast to Schleip’s own posts on Wikipediaand elsewhere at least to mid 2007, the non-publicationof similar data splitting his own “new” species seemsto indicate that the evidence he acquired (if he in factlooked) went against his published argument in favourof the new “species”.

Interestingly for his newly created “species”“fredparkeri”, Schleip wrote:

“this assignment should be subject to future studieson a genetic basis”.

which showed that he either did not conduct geneticstudies on this species, or alternatively his resultsweren’t published as they went against his clear desireto name new “taxa” and be believed by his readers.

The key element of the use of genetics in determiningnew species is that it is essential only when thedelineation of taxa may otherwise be difficult orquestionable.

Most species known to science were never delineatedon the basis of mtDNA due to the fact that it wasn’tnecessary as the differences between taxa were



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

substantive and obvious.

In the case of L. hoserae, versus L. albertisi, the needto look at mtDNA to confirm the validity of the speciesdesignation was slight. The two taxa are obviouslyvery different, obviously allopatric, being split by a verysubstantive barrier and hence obviously differentspecies (see for example O’Shea’s comments on thisin O’Shea 2007a).

By contrast all the northern Leiopython are essentiallysimilar in most respects, as conceded by Schleip, notdivided by any obvious and permanent barriers andhence are the obvious targets for mtDNA analysis asinferred in the widely disseminated abstract, but notdelivered on in the actual paper.

In other words the abstract as published anddisseminated is misleading and dishonest.

SEPARATION OF THE THREE SCHLEIP CREATEDSPECIES

Until now, all the Schleip taxa would have beenrecognised as stock, standard L. albertisi for his newlycreated “biakensis”, or “L. albertisi bennettorum” forhis “huonensis” or “fredparkeri”.

Notable also is that until publication of his 2008, paperSchleip was vocal (on his website) in declaring thatseparated distribution was not a useful basis to identifytaxa.

This view was taken because it was a key plank in hisprinted rebuttal of the Hoser-named taxa.

In the 2008 paper, Schleip relied heavily on so-called“Operational Taxonomic Units” to allege what he called“geographically isolated or disjunctive populations”,later also used to separate his new “species”.

This is of course based on the limited collection ofspecimens he had at his disposal, noting that most ofthe relevant parts of Island New Guinea (and nearby)is relatively uninhabited and not collected for reptiles,meaning that it’d be almost impossible to claim noLeiopython inhabit intervening regions, unless ofcourse one is talking about an island population, whichthen makes potential “rafting” of snakes an issue andseems obvious in the base of Biak.

Hence, the end point as stated in his paper for definingthese new “species” using his relatively newly invoked“evolutionary species concept”(or ESC) is that hisspecies populations are genetically isolated from oneanother by being distributionally disjunct.

While the central range can give a safe bet southernNew Guinea Leiopython have been separated fromthe northern population for anything up to 5 millionyears (mtDNA separation of about 10% as stated bySchleip), no such barrier either recently past or presentis known to separate any of the northern populations,including the island race from Biak, which as recentlyas 12,500 years ago was virtually joined to the rest of

New Guinea, (see for example figs 10 and 11 in Harveyet. al. 2000, with specific reference to Biak and it’sbeing near part of the Sahul Shelf).

Those authors (Harvey et. al. 2000) found that bymolecular analysis the Scrub Python snakes from Biakwere effectively identical to those from nearbymainland New Guinea. Hence it’d be expected asimilar situation would exist for the White-lippedPythons (Leiopython). Furthermore, noting the findingsof Harvey et. al. were published eight years earlier andknown to Schleip, it’d have been incumbent for him toprovide contrary data for his own new taxa from thesame place.

Schleip has not done this!

This raises more questions than it answers, andbesides raising questions about Schleip’s badmethodology, it also raises the ethical issue of whetheror not he’s deliberately chosen to exclude data he knewwouldn’t fit his predetermined aim to “find” newspecies-level taxa, where none actually existed!

Alternatively, has he chosen not to investigate whereit may lead to findings contrary to that which he seeksto publish and disseminate.

In terms of his morphological analysis, Schleipdeliberately excluded a host of characters, such astemporals, parietals and postoculars on the allegedbasis that there was an allegedly “random distributionbetween different populations”.

However these scales are routinely used to split otherpython taxa including some from Australasia (see forexample, Hoser 2000b, noting that the relevantdiagnoses are in turn adopted from earlier authors andtherefore not merely Hoser inventions).

However it is clear that the exclusion of charactersthat give no statistical standing in favour of onepopulation versus another have been excluded bySchleip solely so as to inflate the relative importanceof the obscure characteristics (based on ridiculouslysmall sample sizes) he seeks to rely upon to separatehis newly created “species”.

In terms of the Schleip created species huonensis, itis notable that it is found immediately to the west ofthe distribution for “L. bennetorum”. Schelip’sdiagnosis for the newly created taxon, states that it’seffectively inseparable from bennetorum save for “thelower number of loreal and prefrontal scales as wellas a lower average number of postoculars”.

The question then begs, are these minor scaledifferences observed in pitifully small samples ofsnakes sufficient grounds to split these snakes off asa separate species?

Also, what of snakes found between the stated knownlocations for these two “taxa”, are they different again?Or are they simply intermediates, as seems likely.



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Hedging his bets each way, in the regions betweenhis newly created “taxa” Schleip has marked hisdistribution map (Fig five in the paper) with a series ofstrategically placed question marks (notation being“populations of unclear taxonomic status”).

If one were to assume the logical Schleip speciestheory to it’s logical conclusion, each question markwould represent a new species, giving several newtaxa, and an end-point of many essentially similarspecies in the “Leiopython albertisi” species complex,when for other similarly distributed (and similarlymobile) python taxa in the same region (“amethistina”,“viridis”, etc), there is only one of each.

Leiopython fredparkeri, according to Schleip yieldsscale counts intermediate between L. albertisi”, “L.bennettorum” and his newly created “L. huonesnsis”,which is of course totally expected as these snakesare found between the known locations for these.

Rather than providing evidence for the existence of anew species of Leiopython, Schleip has in fact providedfurther evidence of clinal variation in the range of thetaxon L. albertisi, within the region of Northern NewGuinea.

The same situation is of course seen with “L.huonensis” with it being essentially intermediate in formbetween “L. bennettorum” and “L. fredparkeri”, the“species” between which it’s known.

Again, Schleip has chosen to exclude snakes foundin regions between these newly created “species” asthey would almost certainly be clinal (again) to thosehe has named.

Hence the true picture revealed is one of clinal variationin the north New Guinea Leiopython, rather than anyevidence of speciation, discounting of course “recent”man-made barriers, such as roads, farms, fences andthe like, similar to those erected worldwide in the last2000 years.

Schleip’s diagnosis of his newly created “species”, L.biakensis is the most hypocritical act in his paper, asshown here.

The use of head scalation characters to separate this“species” from all other Brown Leiopython, breaksdown, so he relies on cutting up his samples to givethe appearance of consistent differences in his criticallyimportant “diagnosis”. Yes, he even splits Irian JayaL. albertisi from New Guinea ones to get his statisticalgymnastics over the line in terms of diagnosing his“species”.

This is of course the hallmark of his paper in that heuses, statistics with dodgy parameters andquestionable statistical tests to prove his allegedconsistent differences (using carefully selectedparameters), based on selected samples and on theexclusion of intermediate (often clinal) specimens thatmay distort his end figures.

Things are made worse when he concedes that hissample size of his newly created “species” L. biakensis,is just two animals, and the best differentiating featurefrom L. albertisi from nearby Irian Jaya he has is merely“two labials entering the orbit” in his newly created L.biakensis.

It’s also noted here that assuming this trait to be uniqueto those specimens, it may not be consistent amongothers from Biak!

Schleip also stated:

“This allopatric population shows little, butdiagnosable morphological differences toother species. Brongersma (1956) assumedthis population to form an incipient race.Because of the geographic distance to themainland populations, of Leiopython albertisi,it is unlikely that gene flow occurs amongthese populations. Hence this population isconsidered reproductively isolated (sensuWiens, 2004) and in accordance with Frostand Hills (1990) and based on the ESC (sensuFrost and Kluge, 1994), the assignment ofspecific rank to this population seemsjustified.”

In other words the primary basis for separating this“taxon” is distribution and a crude “assumption” withoutdata from an author 52 years ago.

Jumping the gun is a thought that springs to mind here,but lack of data is another serious problem.

Schleip repeats the distribution argument (allopatricpopulations) at length in his final justification for thecreation of his three new “species”, using selectivequotes taken out of context from papers by Frost andHillis (1990), Frost and Kluge (1994) and Wiens (2004),giving an observer like myself the impression thatSchleip hopes that no one chooses to read either thedetail of the cited papers, or for that matter even thedetail of the data he’s presented himself.

Taking the Schleip interpretations and argument to it’slogical end point, you would have almost all islandpopulations of almost all vertebrate species potentiallybeing elevated to new “species” under his newlywarped interpretation of the ESC.

Likewise for every species found in valleys that areseparated by barriers such as low hills, poor habitat,roads, farms, factories and so on, even if the habitatbarriers were no more than a few hundred years old.

With many hundreds of islands offshore to NewGuinea, many separated for less than 12,500 years,you can see the potential for a taxonomic nightmareemerging, not just for herpetologists, but all biologists,in terms if the idea of naming all island populations fullspecies ever takes hold.

However such an outcome will keep editors of



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

publications like “Zootaxa” busy for a long, long time!

The hypocrisy part of Schleip’s use of distribution asthe key driver to creating his “species” “biakensis” isthat for the previous 8 years and even in his 2008paper, he argues strongly against the recognition ofthe L. albertisi from Mussau Island as distinct, claimingdistribution is not a useful character.

That population is however that named by his enemy(Hoser), in Hoser 2000b as L. albertisi barkeri (correctlyamended to barkerorum) regarded by Schleip 2008and associates (as posted on the internet) as “Nomennudem”.

In Schleip’s 2008 paper he wrote a diatribe claimingthe taxon was a “nomen nudem” and also arguing:

“Allopatric distribution may itself separate theMassau Island population geographically, butit is highly questionable if this alone is able todistinguish a taxon from another, regardlessof the underlying species concept.”

So while allopatric distribution apparently pushesSchleip’s own vague “species” over the line, it is notsufficient grounds to push a similarly isolated islandpopulation (more distant from the main population)over the line as a separate taxon.

The evolutionary species concept (ESC) wasemployed by zoologists to account for allopatric andother reproductively isolated populations of similaranimals that were not ever likely to breed or evolvetogether as a species and hence would for theindefinite future evolve apart.

In terms of it’s use and application in the classificationof pythons, recent examples of papers and outcomesinclude Harvey et. al. 2000 and others. Schleip’s 2008interpretation of the ESC is so warped and extreme,that taken to it’s logical end-point, you could foreseetwo sibling snakes separated in plastic tubs beingdeclared separate taxa on the basis of scalationdifferences in traits known to be variable if the ownersaid “I will not put these snakes together, ever!”

I have one such example in my facility in terms ofsibling Olive Pythons, both demonstrating differenthead shield configurations, and using the Schleiptheories as practiced could both be renamed as “new”species under his warped ESC interpretation.

DOES WULF SCHLEIP REALLY THINK THEBROWN L. ALBERTISI ARE REALLY SEVERALSPECIES?

Frankly I doubt it.

After one analyses the statistical gymnastics of Schleipand one allows for the unaccounted for specimensfrom the mainly uncollected parts of island NewGuinea, his excluded samples and the like, it becomesclear that it’d be difficult for a herpetologist to accuratelyassign a random brown Leiopython to any specific taxa

as identified by Schleip in his 2008 paper.

Put simply, there are too many question marks.

As it happens, Schleip himself seems unable to dothis for specimens analysed in his own paper for whichhe states he is unable to identify provenance.

Perhaps more tellingly is his website that he revampedand reloaded in December 2008.

On a number of his web-pages he talks about thehusbandry of White-lipped Pythons” and on these healways splits the snakes into just two species, namelythe “southern white-lipped python Leiopython hoserae”and the “Northern White-lipped PythonLeiopython.albertisi”, the latter of which is discussedas a single species and never with reference to hismyriad “new” taxa.

A “BIG NAME HUNTER” IS ISOLATED

Ironically it was Schleip’s colleague Wüster in 2007,who spoke to an editor of the journal “Nature” for anarticle later printed and titled “Big Name Hunters”(Borrell 2007).

In the poorly written article Wüster spoke of so-called“amateur” (defined by himself as not being on thegovernment payroll) taxonomists “naming” species ina rush so as to get a “big name” for themselves or to“scoop” competitors.

Wüster was as always attacking Hoser, describing theHoser papers as “shoddy descriptions” and makingwhat he knew to be the false claim that Hoser haddeliberately scooped Aplin to name Acanthophis wellsi.

The Nature article was poorly written, having liberalquotes from Wüster, with myself never beinginterviewed or even aware of the article until the timeof publication. The lack of balance in the article wasperhaps best seen in the citations, which liberallyreferred to the Wüster criticisms of the Hoser papers,while failing to cite a single paper from myself (or forthat matter many of the others by others independentlysupporting the Hoser position).

Notwithstanding this lack of balance, the reportermanaged to state about myself that “There’s no onein history that’s spent so much time dealing with,looking at catching and breeding Death Adders” andthat the description of myself (Hoser) as an “amateur”is “complete rubbish”.

The amazing part of this attack on myself by Wüsterwas that at the time he was still actively bootleggingmy papers and their findings in his various publications,including making numerous false claims of “firsts”.

One was in a 2005 paper (Wüster et. al. 2005), wherehe made the audacious “discovery” that Acanthophispraelongus was restricted to Cape York and not acrossnorthern Australia as formerly thought.

Of course the same position had been established byHoser 1998, and confirmed by Hoser 2002 and Wells



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

2002, putting Wüster et. al. third in line to have madethe “discovery”!

This particular series of lies by Wüster et. al., isn’t thekey part of the “Big Name Hunter” story.

More significant is that at the same approximate time,it was his mate Wulf Schleip who was actually guilty ofthe sin of rushing to print names of taxa withoutsufficient evidence, or as Wüster, Schleip and Williamsrepeatedly claimed (for myself) descriptions lackingtestable evidence.

Furthermore it seems that Wüster was aware of thefact that Schleip’s new “taxa” are on questionablegrounds.

In the acknowledgements, Wüster is gratefully thankedby Schleip for revising drafts of the manuscript. Yet heis not listed as co-author as one would expect. This issignificant as Wüster, being an academic based inWales, usually rushes to have himself listed as a co-author in papers of taxonomic nature (see citationshere and elsewhere, including his own website at: http://biology.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/, which incidentally hasa single banner advert that links to Shane Hunter’santi-Hoser petition at: http://www.aussiereptileclassifieds.com/phpPETITION/,itself a rich source of lies and misinformation aboutmyself (Hoser) and venomoid (devenomized) snakesproduced at our facility, and also proudly boasts Schleipas an “official sponsor”).

Similar occurs with the convicted reptile smuggler,David John Williams, recently fined $7,500 for animalcruelty and smuggling, who is also one who usuallyjumps at the chance to be listed as co-author. Schleipgratefully thanks him, but again does not list him asco-author.

Schleip’s summary in his paper states that he has failedto look at intermediate and perhaps clinal populations.Schleip’s summary admits to looking at mtDNA for theBlack Leiopython, long recognised as separate fromthe rest, but fails to provide similar mtDNA data for hisalleged new taxa and admits that such work would benecessary to confirm the taxa.

Surely this basic work should have been done beforehe rushed to print and put names to alleged taxa andnot left to someone else to either validate or repudiatehis own position.

Or was it merely a case of Wüster’s mate Wulf Schleipbeing guilty of rushing to be a “Big Name Hunter!” aswritten about in the journal Nature.

Even more amazing is that the editor’s of a journalsuch as the Journal of Herpetology, actually allowedsuch premature and sloppy work to be published!

One may guess that with so many lies, damned lies,or statistics, that the editor in chief may not have readthe devil in the detail.

“DILUTION” OF A SPECIES – THE END POINT OFTAXONOMIC EXAGGERATION

The relative importance of a species is diluted whenone becomes many. If the change is warranted, sobe it. However in the case of the Brown Leiopythonthere seems to be a case of so-called “taxonomicexaggeration”, whereby the significance of minordifferences are being exaggerated in order to push agroup of snakes over the line in terms of being morethan a single species.

As seen in Orchids (Pillon and Chase 2006), we maysee in snakes such as Leiopython excess funds andresources being devoted to the conservation of allegedtaxa that don’t really warrant it, such as perhaps for aregional group, that in real terms may not besignificantly different to those elsewhere.

Noting the already stretched resources in terms ofconserving threatened reptiles, taxonomicexaggeration by Schleip in terms of the brownLeiopython is not just against the sane principals ofmodern taxonomy, but also potentially against longterm reptile and wildlife conservation efforts if suchmisconduct is allowed to go on uncondemned.

In Australia, we already are seeing the ill-effects oftaxonomic exaggeration diverting funds away frommore meaningful projects.

In Victoria for example the local wildlife departmentDSE, is spending vast amounts of money countingnumbers of Carpet Pythons (Morelia metcalfei) fromthis state, where they are only found in a small part ofthe state and hence have a “rare” listing, on the allegedbasis of alleged differences to specimens found northand east of Victoria where they remain generallywidespread across most of NSW and nearby parts ofSA and Qld.

Broadly speaking the taxon is under no threat and theefforts spent counting local Victorian snakes could befar better spent on other projects.

If the creation of Leiopython “species” that satisfiesan innate urge by hobbyist snake keeper Wulf Schleipfor self gratification becomes widely accepted andadopted, a potential outcome may be other hobbyistsrushing to print with poorly constructed descriptionsthat end up clogging herpetological journals with dodgystatistical analysis and the like to literally “baffle readerswith bullshit” in order to get gratification of pseudo-species with their names attached seen in other thirdparty publications.

IS LEIOPYTHON ALBERTISI BARKERORUM“ NOMEN NUDEM”?

Both on his revamped (December 2008) website andin his 2008 paper, Schleip states that Leiopythonalbertisi barkeri Hoser 2000 is a “nomen nudem”.

The only positive of this argument by Schleip is that



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

for the first time ever, he’d put in print that the othernamed “Hoser taxa” are in fact validly named,contradicting earlier versions of his website, as wellas his many 2007 “edits” of “wikipedia” or for that matterSchleip (2004)!

Just as Schleip has quoted out of context andmisrepresented facts to get to a predetermined andpreferred position with his newly created “species”, itappears he has similarly done the same thing to arriveat his desired position that the Hoser name is a nomennudem, even if the facts don’t necessarily support hisclaim.

To simplify things, I shall reprint in full the originaldiagnosis from the original description in Hoser 2000b.The undisputed Holotype details and the like areexcluded here, even though under the ICZN rules suchdetails are mandatory.

“DIAGNOSIS: This is the subspecies of L.albertisi that is endemic to Mussau Island inthe Saint Matthias Group, BismarckArchipelago. It is separated from L. albertisialbertisi by the mutually exclusive distributionand by analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Ventralcounts for this species are near the lower limitfor the range for New Guinea L. albertisi. Thetrait may be used as a potential indicator forthe subspecies in the absence of other data.Other scalation counts and properties alsooverlap with those of the type subspecies.”

Schleip 2008a claimed that the diagnosis didn’t complywith Article 13.1.1 of the code, saying “yet Hoser (2000)had failed to provide evidence for these statements”.He then said:

“Allopatric distribution itself may separate theMassau Island population geographically, butit is highly questionable if this alone is able todistinguish a taxon from another regardlessof the underlying species concept”.

In other words, Schleip claimed the name was nomennudem on the basis my diagnosis lacked evidence!

However article 13.1.1 of the code makes no suchmention of evidence or characters.

The relevant part of the code in fact reads:

“Article 13. Names published after 1930.

13.1. Requirements. To be available, everynew name published after 1930 must satisfythe provisions of Article 11 and must13.1.1. be accompanied by a description ordefinition that states in words characters thatare purported to differentiate the taxon”

The significance is that the diagnosis itself does notneed to be correct or have evidence to support it!The word “purport” is not defined by the code, but mostdictionary definitions are similar.

From the Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary,published in 1970, by the World Publishing Company,USA, (Various 1970) the definition is:

“purport. Anglo/French1/ To profess or claim it’s meaning2/ To give the appearance of, often falsely ofbeing, in lending, etc.”

As it happens there are countless examples in zoologyof validly described taxa having diagnoses that aretotally wrong or false and yet the names remain‘available” under the code, provided the other essentialingredients such as a name bearing holotype are met.

In other words, in my view even if the Hoser 2000bdiagnosis for L. albertisi barkerorum is totally wrongand false, or pure unmitigated crap, the mere fact thereis a diagnosis purporting something, makes the nameavailable.

A similar situation happened recently with Wells andWellington diagnoses for skinks in the genusCyclodomorphus. Shea found the original diagnosisfor a taxon (C. michaeli) to be wrong, but the Wellsand Wellington name remained available and hencewas used by the later author as the first available name.See Wells and Wellington 1983 and 1984 and thenShea 1995 for the detail.

There are countless similar such cases.

In other words, by my interpretation of the code, thename Leiopython barkerorum remains available underthe code (ICZN 1999).

The rest of Schleip’s diatribe about Leiopythonbarkerorum is similarly wrong and repetitive and mostimportantly never gets near the point referred to in theonline abstract to the paper, namely the mtDNA.

Harvey et. al. 2000 found a 5% divergence in mtDNAbetween the New Ireland Scrub Pythons (hereinidentified as Australiasis duceboracensis Günther(1879)) and those from nearby mainland New Guinea(the northern taxon being referrable to A. amethistina),(the genus name Australiasis having been proposedfor the Scrub Pythons by Wells and Wellington andfor consistency purposes has been adopted and usedby Hoser 2000b and is preferred here at the genuslevel for the species complex), going on to say thateach were probably a different species. Other authors(including Barker) have relied on a 3% divergence toseparate three python species from the “curtus” group,from western Indonesia (Keogh et. al. 2001).

Noting the known location of “Leiopython barkerorumHoser 2000” in the same general region as Australiasisduceboracensis Günther (1879), one would expect asimilar mtDNA divergence for these snakes ascompared to the mainland New Guinea animals, dueto a likelihood of the snakes being affected by the samephysical barriers and more importantly a known gapin the distribution of the brown Leiopython in the area



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

generally inhabited by the species Bothrochilus boa.

In his bibliography, Schleip 2008a claims to have readHarvey et. al. 2000 (cited as a reference), and in spiteof the undisputed facts above, Schleip has chosennot to compare mtDNA between the relevantpopulations of Brown Leiopython and yet has foundan innate urge to attempt “purge” the Hoser taxon“Leiopython barkerorum” as a valid taxon, regardlessof the underlying nomenclature and yet without anyreal evidence.

Again I note that the amazing thing about all this, isthat a journal with the status of Journal of Herpetologyeven printed such a poorly written “paper” with suchgaping holes in it’s methodology, leading to obviousquestions about the quality of “peer review” in thisinstance.

STABILIZING THE NOMENCLATURE OFLEIOPYTHONSchleip and associates as named have greater time,money and other resources than myself and a fargreater demonstrated ability to make “noise”, theupshot being that they may continue to destabilize thenomenclature of this genus for many years.In the first instance, the only sensible means to settlesuch “noise” may be to petition the ICZN, the processof which may take several more years to resolve.

Regardless of the arguments for or against the Hoser2000 description of “Leiopython albertisi barkeri”, thestabilizing of the nomenclature is important and as analternative to a drawn out case before the ICZN, thispaper seeks to stabilize the nomenclature by simplermeans.

Therefore, and without reference to the Hoser 2000description (Hoser 2000b), that taxon is describedherein below as “new” and without reference to theHoser 2000b paper, the significant net result of thisaction to most other taxonomists being a citation dateof 2008 for the said taxon.

The relevant section of the ICZN rules (ICZN 1999) isprinted below:

“nomen nudum (pl. nomina nuda ), n.A Latin term referring to a name that, ifpublished before 1931, fails to conform toArticle 12; or, if published after 1930, fails toconform to Article 13. A nomen nudum is notan available name, and therefore the samename may be made available later for thesame or a different concept; in such a case itwould take authorship and date [Arts. 50, 21]from that act of establishment, not from anyearlier publication as a nomen nudum.”

LEIOPYTHON ALBERTISI BARKERORUM SUBSP.NOV.

HOLOTYPE: A female specimen, at the UniversitetetsZoologiske Museum, Copenhagen (R5444) collected

by the Noona Dan Expedition, from the Island ofMussau in the Saint Matthias Group, BismarckArchipelago, Lat: 1° 30' Long: 149° 40'. Scalation issmooth with 267 ventrals and 72 subcaudals.

PARATYPE : A male specimen, at the UniversitetetsZoologiske Museum, Copenhagen (R5445) collectedby the Noona Dan Expedition, from the Island ofMussau, in the Saint Matthias Group, BismarckArchipelago, Lat: 1° 30' 149° 40'. Scalation is smoothwith 271 ventrals and 73 subcaudals.

DIAGNOSIS: This is the subspecies of L. albertisi thatis endemic to Mussau Island in the Saint MatthiasGroup, Bismarck Archipelago. It is separated from L.albertisi albertisi and all other taxa formerly attributedto this species or genus (Leiopython) by the mutuallyexclusive distribution, which is diagnostic of this taxoneither alone and/or in combination with other features/traits.

Also diagnostic of this taxon (separate or incombination with other features) is the positioning andnature of the whitish spot behind the eye. The spot ispresent in an upper post-ocular, but is brownish incolour, tending to yellow in the center. The scaleimmediately above this (the supra-ocular) has a similarbrownish marking, that tends slightly closer to the eyeitself and also borders the lower part of the scale. Noother Leiopython other than this taxon has this exactscalation trait making this taxon easily separated fromall other Leiopython.

Also diagnostic of this taxon (separate or incombination with other features) is the white barringof the lips, which rather than being whitish in colour,as seen in all other Leiopython, has a distinctiveyellowish hue unique to this taxon.

The distinct white (or yellowish in the case of this taxon)barring of the upper labials in this taxon, which alsoseparates this genus from all other pythons (exceptLenhoserus boeleni, that’s separated by a dorsalpattern not seen in Leiopython) is more extensive thanfor all other Leiopython albertisi. In this taxon,Leiopython albertisi barkerorum subsp. nov. , anaverage of 60% of the labials are “light”, whereas theratio for other Leiopython is 45-50%. This alone and/or in combination with one or more other traits isdiagnostic of this taxon, namely Leiopython albertisibarkerorum subsp. nov.

Ventral counts for this species are near the lower limitfor the range for all other L. albertisi and taken asaverage counts are also diagnostic for this taxon, eitheralone or in combination with other diagnostic traits.

The details are as follows:

Average ventral count for Leiopython albertisibarkerorum subsp. nov. is 269

Average ventral count for Leiopython albertisifrom West Papua and Salwatti Island is 278.2



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Average ventral count for Leiopython albertisifrom PNG only is 270.9

Average ventral count for Leiopython albertisifrom the entire known range is 275.7

Analysis of mitochondrial DNA and nuclearDNA as a matter of course shows divergenceof base pairs as compared to all otherLeiopython not attributable to this taxon andis diagnostic of this taxon either alone or incombination with other diagnostic traits.

ETYMOLOGY: Named after two people, namely Davidand Tracy Barker of Texas. The husband and wife teamhave developed one of the most sophisticated pythonbreeding facilities in the world.

OTHER DUBIOUS WORK BY SCHLEIP

Further reading of Schleip’s paper shows that he hasmade other false or misleading statements, often incontradiction to the position accepted by most otherherpetologists.

Adding to that some of the rubbish on his website, it’dbe too tedious and time-consuming to list them all.

However, Hoser 2000b stated that the reports of “L.albertisi” (now known as L. hoserae) from theAustralian territorial islands near the New Guinealandmass were probably false and based onmisidentified water pythons. This assertion was basedon the following:

· Similarity in appearance to lay people.

· A known abundance of Water Pythons inthe area, including in recent (1990’s and (now) beyondcollecting expeditions).

· Habitat being more suited to WaterPythons and not to Leiopython.

· No Leiopython from the said islandlocations being lodged in museums in spite of intensivecollecting in the area.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this positionwas in turn adopted by virtually all publishingherpetologists, including Steve Wilson (Wilson 2005),based at the Museum of Queensland, who of all peoplewould know of any legitimate records of the taxon inAustralian territory and has worked closely with most(legal) collectors at Sabai Island and other relevantplaces, and Swan (2007), accepting the Hoser (2000b)position stating, on page 18 of the book that heexcluded the taxon (from his accounts of Australianpythons) on the basis that claims from Australianterritory were inconsistent.

In spite of this, Schleip misrepresented Barker andBarker 1994 to claim and describe specimens fromthese islands.

However as Hoser 2000b had stated or inferred, thedescription of “Australian” L. albertisi was based on

southern New Guinea animals that were bypresumption those likely to be found on Australianterritorial islands that straddle the south New Guineacoast and have been presumed to have the same orsimilar fauna (e.g. Varanus prasinus).

Being well-aware that the basis of the old reports ofLeiopython from Australian territory were almostcertainly false, or so unreliable as to best be treatedas false, I e-mailed a query letter to the cited source,Dave Barker himself.

In an e-mail reply from Dave Barker dated 14December 2008, thus post-dating the publication ofSchleip’s paper, Dave Barker himself confirmed theabove and that his published description of AustralianLeiopython were based on second-hand reports andnot any such specimens caught or sighted or confirmedby himself as being from Australian territory.

He stated:

“My account is based on other publishedreports.”

It’s common-knowledge that the old reports areerroneous.

By way of example, Harry Ehmann’s book (Ehmann1992), erroneously depicted a Brown (north NewGuinea), Leiopython albertisi and described it as anAustralian taxon, referring it’s distribution to TorresStrait Island Australian territory.

On that basis and in the absence of any new evidence,it must remain the case that there are no L. hoserae(or L. albertisi) known from Australian territorial islands,which is of course contrary to the grosslymisrepresented information in the Schleip paper, thatsomehow escaped judicious editorial quality control.

Hence some obvious questions arise.

Why didn’t Schleip make a similar inquiry to my ownDecember 2008 query of Barker to ascertain the factsabout allegedly Australian L. hoserae, before printingold and questionable information?

Barker is not a hermit and is readily accessible via hiswebsite at:

www.vpi.com

To his credit Barker is generally prompt at answeringall bona-fide questions from all comers.

It seems even stranger that noting Schleip’s constantuse of the internet, including to incessantly promotemultiple votes for the convicted reptile smuggler DavidWilliams for an ill-fated Hotel contest, he wasapparently unable, unwilling, or too lazy to check hisbasic facts on Leiopython before rushing to print anddisseminate what is well-known to be false andinaccurate information.

Even more odd, is a notation near the end of the paper(page 19, Schleip 2008a) that says he thanks David



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

G. Barker for sharing his great knowledge of the genusLeiopython with him, meaning perhaps Schleip eitherforgot to ask the logical questions of him, and/or heforgot the very simple answer, that I had to extractindependently in December 2008.

CONTRARY TO THE ICZN CODE

Schleip’s paper and website both repeatedlymisrepresent the ICZN’s code.

I can assume he hopes that not too many peopleactually read the relevant sections of the code andlook into the detail.

However his repeated references to the code in thepast 7 years on his website and the way he hasconstructed his paper of 2008 indicates he is familiarwith the ICZN rules.

His manifestly inadequate descriptions of Leiopythontaxa (in particular for his “Leiopython biakensis”), whilethoroughly unconvincing as they stand and lacking inevidence to support their position, do fulfil the minimumrequirements of the 1999 (effective 2000) code of theICZN.

In other words all names are “available” within themeaning of the code.

The Schleip names are not nomen nudem!

One can reliably conclude that Schleip has literallythrown the names into the pool of available nameswith the vain hope that one day, one or two may actuallybe used, but on the basis of a more thorough analysisby another herpetologist.

On his website he does actually quote sections of thecode, and it is evident that he has gleaned this eitherfrom a hard copy or more likely from the ICZN’swebsite, where the rules are now posted (at: http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp).

However his continued vicious attacks and rhetoricagainst myself and the language used is totally inviolation of the rules and the ethics within.

Under “Appendix A, Code of Ethics” one finds:

“5. Intemperate language should not be usedin any discussion or writing which involveszoological nomenclature, and all debatesshould be conducted in a courteous andfriendly manner.6. Editors and others responsible for thepublication of zoological papers should avoidpublishing any material which appears to themto contain a breach of the above principles.”

However on his internet site (where Schleip is editorand author) you find repeated fowl language andinsults, for which there are no reasonable justificationsand are therefore clear breaches of the ICZN’s rules.On his own website (December 2008 reloadedversion), he makes a barrage of false claims aboutmyself. There are too many to list here, as to do so

would require yet more time wasted printing the truth(in the form of rebuttals of idiot claims).But the end-point of his lies is his ultimate statementbeing that Raymond Hoser is: “a taxonomic nerd andhis actions are taxonomic vandalism!”That clearly violates both points 5 and 6 of the ICZN’scode of ethics. Schleip’s, Wüster’s and Williams’comments on third party sites are of course far worse!

That’s also before one factors in even more offensivematerial posted by the group under false names.

WIDER TAXONOMIC ISSUES INVOLVING THEPYTHONSThe morphological and molecular data provided byauthors as cited earlier and at the rear of this paper isbroadly consistent.

By and large recognized taxa have been named andat the appropriate level and hence no need to revisitthis material here.

At the species level, there has been little disputeamong authors, including the recent diagnosis of newlydescribed species in the genera Leiopython (asidentified by Hoser) 2000b, Australiasis (Harvey et. al.2000), including those they didn’t assign names to forwhich names are already available, andChondropython (Rawlings and Donnellan 2003).

Because neither Harvey et. al. (2000) or Rawlings andDonellan 2003, had a close look at the nomenclaturesurrounding all the pythons subject of their inquiriesand/or failed to make this appropriately clear in theirpapers, it’s proper that this be done and the appropriatenaming issues resolved.

In both the preceding cases, there were availablenames for the species-level taxa and these are givenbelow.

For the Chondropython, (relegated by some authorsto subgenus or ignored in favor of the widerencompassing “Morelia”), the two obvious specieshave available names, as does one of the obvioussubspecies (the Australian one). However anotherfrom Normanby Island in the Milne Bay Province ofPNG does not, and hence it is formally described anddiagnosed below.

While the level of subgenus has not always been widelyused in the Pythoninae, it is appropriate that when agenus has two or more distinct groups of species, thatsubgenus be employed to delineate the groups,especially if and when most taxonomists will notchoose to split the genus into two, but yet recognizethe obvious species groups within.

Hence for the Morelia group, the carinata speciesgroup (as a monotypic species) is herein placed in it’sown subgenus, away from the smooth-scaledcongeners, generally known as “Carpet Pythons” andincluding the similar “Diamond Python”.



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

In the case of the Antaresia, the distinctive Ant-hillPython is also moved into a group of it’s own in a newsubgenus, away from the other named taxa in thegenus.

Within the Pythoninae, there is no evidence for anyother obvious splits to subgenus level and/oralternatively there are names available already in theevent that obvious divisions are made.

In my view, the species most likely have moreunnamed subspecies is Broghammerus reticulatus,whose distribution includes relatively unstudied areasbetween continental Asia and Australia.

SCRUB PYTHONS

Grouped by most authors within the genus “Morelia”,some including Wells and Wellington place them within“Australiasis”, which may ultimately be regarded bymost herpetologists as a “subgenus”.

Here Australiasis is treated as a full genus.

Resolution of the taxonomy within the group was doneeffectively by Harvey et. al. 2000, who also assignednames to those taxa for which names wereunavailable.

Although citing the need for extra work to be done onthe population centered on Island New Guinea andnearby, their paper did view it as likely that identifiablegroups could be ultimately recognized as full species,although in fairness to the authors their results for thesesnakes was somewhat ambiguous.

Taking their findings at face value, it seems inevitablethat if those populations do not get recognition asspecies in the long term, then subspecies may be theappropriate designation.

For the purposes of what follows, they are identifiedbelow as full species for consistency and to allow otherherpetologists to accurately identify snakes they maywork with or collect from known localities.

A serious problem in the past has been when ecologicalstudies on a “single” species later are found to haveincluded several and with the lack of identifying notesat the time of the original study, the ultimate worth ofthe study is devalued in the light of newer information.

One such example is that of Shine (1980) who’s studyon Death Adders (Acanthophis spp.) was later foundto have included several species lumped as one, butwho at the time failed to take appropriate notes of thelocality data for material examined.

Based primarily on “Fig 6” from Harvey et. al. and otherdata within the paper, we find the Scrub Pythonsclassified (by distribution) as shown below. The onlysignificant change is the removal of “kinghorni” as ajunior synonym for “clarki”, which comes from the“Australian” side of Torres Strait and must (in theabsence of contrary evidence) therefore by deemedto be of the same taxon as “kinghorni”. Also note that

Harvey et. al. page 162, specifically identify the MurrayIsland scrub pythons as being of the same taxon thatthey refer to the more recently named “kinghorni”,thereby again giving “clarki” priority under the ICZNrules.

This accords with the decision made by Hoser 2000bfor the same taxon in terms of identity of the relevantsnakes and priority of name.

My guess is that Harvey et. al. inadvertently overlookedthe above anomaly as published in their 2000 paper.

Hence below, and for the first time ever is published alist identifying all Scrub Pythons (Australiasis) with a“species” name and the locations they occur.

List of Australiasis species by distribution

Australiasis amethistina (Schneider 1801),Northwestern New Guinea and perhapsfurther afield.

Australiasis clarki (Barbour 1914), ContinentalAustralia and immediately adjacent islands.

Australiasis clastolepis (Harvey et. al. 2000),Ambon/Ceram and nearby islands.

Australiasis dipsadides (Ogilby 1891),southern half of Island New Guinea andimmediately adjacent islands.

Australiasis duceboracensis (Günther 1879),Bismarck Archipelago

Australiasis nauta (Harvey et. al. 2000),Tanimbar Islands.

Australiasis tracyae (Harvey et. al. 2000),Halmahera and nearby islands.

CARPET PYTHONS

Until the description of M. carinata by Smith (1980)based on a recently discovered specimen fromWestern Australia, all Carpet Pythons were known tobe essentially similar in form and smooth-scaled.

While the taxonomy at the genus level has been in astate of flux, sensu-stricto, the genus Morelia hasincluded just the smooth-scaled Carpet/DiamondPythons, treated in turn by many authors as a “super-species” or species complex.

MtDNA evidence hasn’t necessarily resolved thetaxonomy of the group because different results in DNAdo not necessarily match observed differences inphenotype.

However within the Carpet/Diamond Pythons allspecies are allopatric to one another, sometimes beingreferred to as regional races, (often with so-called“intergrades” known as shown in Hoser 1989), withthe notable exception of M. carinata, which is sympatricwith M. variegata (the top-end Carpet Python).

Noting the obvious differences between M. carinata,not just in having keeled versus smooth-scales, butdentition and other differences between these and



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

other “Carpet Pythons” it makes sense to split thesesnakes apart.

Genus is not an appropriate division based on currentunderstandings of the term, but species also fails tostate the level of differences between this and the othertaxa in the genus.

Hence there is no alternative but to assign the taxoncarinata to a new subgenus.

JACKYPYTHON SUBGEN.NOV.

Type species: Python carinatus Smith 1980.

Diagnosis: The only strongly keeled member of thegenus Morelia. This alone separates the taxa.

Further and/or alternatively separated from smooth-scaled Carpet Pythons by longer and more recurvedteeth (average 25% longer than for all other Morelia,with Morelia and species within the genus beingdefined as in Hoser 2000b).

Restricted to Western Australia’s Kimberly region.

Etymology: Named after the younger daughter of thisauthor, Jacky Hoser in honor of her valuable educationwork at reptile demonstrations and the like, includingfrom the age of three safely handling venomoidversions of the world’s five deadliest snake genera,namely Parademansia, Oxyuranus, Pseudonaja,Notechis and Acanthophis and most importantly afterfive years of doing so, never having had a single bite!This emphatically proves that the best way to avoidsnakebites is to be nice to them.

ANTARESIAThe genus was first erected by Wells and Wellington(1984) (or 1985) and has gained widespreadacceptance since the use of the name by Barker andBarker 1994.

It includes all species formerly grouped as “childreni”(formerly placed in the genus “Liasis”) and later splitby various authors into three taxa, namely childreni,stimsoni (for which saxacola Wells and Wellington1984 has priority but may or may not be available, seebelow) and maculosus, as well as very different taxon,known as the Ant-hill Python, A. perthensis.

The first three taxa are all apparently allopatric andessentially similar in most respects, which is why formany years all were treated as a single variablespecies.

Antaresia perthensis is sympatric to A. stimsoni/saxacola in the Pilbara of Western Australia. It isdifferent in terms of it’s smaller adult size, more stockybuild, smaller clutch size, colouration, habits andscalation (notably mid-body row count) and whileclearly has affinities with the others in the genus, isapart from them. Hence it is appropriate that it beseparated from it’s congeners at a level above speciesand yet not as a full-genus. Hence the creation of anew subgenus for the taxon.

RAWLINGSPYTHON SUBGEN NOV.

Type Species: Liasis perthensis Stull 1932

Diagnosis: Separated from all other Antaresia by 31-35 mid-body scale rows, versus 37-47 mid body rowsfor all other recognized species in the genus Antaresia,namely A. stimsoni (or A. saxacola), A. childreni andA. maculosus.

No other snakes are likely to be confused withRawlingspython subgen. nov.

Further separated from other Antaresia by the generallyreddish color, including blotches and background,versus a generally brownish background color for allother Antaresia.

If blotches in other Antaresia are reddish (as opposedto actually red), they will still be on a yellowish, whitishor brown background color.

Rawlingspython are smaller as adults (to 61 cm long),versus to 105 cm long or larger for all other Antaresia.

Etymology: Named after Adelaide-based Museumresearcher, Lesley H. Rawlings in recognition of herwork on python systematics.

SAXACOLA VERSUS STIMSONIUntil the publication of Hoser 2000b, mostherpetologists in Australia identified the so-calledWestern Children’s Python as A. stimsoni, asdescribed by Smith (1985).

The name “stimsoni” emerged shortly after Wells andWellington’s paper naming the same taxon “saxacola”.

As a result of a petition to the ICZN seekingsuppression of the relevant Wells and Wellingtonpaper, the Smith name gained wide usage, but theWells and Wellington one didn’t.

The petition to the ICZN failed in 1991, (see Storr,Smith and Johnstone 2002) or the ICZN’s ruling aspublished, by which stage “saxacola” had been all butforgotten by most herpetologists.

Following resurrection of “saxacola” by Hoser 2000b,as part of an overview of python systematics, Aplinwrote the following in Storr, Smith and Johnstone(2002):

“The rules controlling the names of animalsdictate that the oldest available name beapplied to any given species and that thedescriptions meet certain minimum criteria toensure identification. Although the namesaxacola narrowly predates Liasis stimsoniorientalis it was proposed without any form ofdifferential diagnosis and is thus regarded asa nomen nudem (literally ‘naked name’) andhence is unavailable (Aplin and Smith 2001).Hoser (2000) has attempted to encourage theuse of saxacola but has failed to address theissue of non-availability.”



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Hoser 2000 (myself) used the name “saxacola” on thebasis that the original Wells and Wellington descriptionhad a seven line “diagnosis” following the heading,viewing that as satisfying the ICZN code.

The relevant section of the code/rules is, Article 13.1.1,which as noted earlier here, reads:

“13.1.1. be accompanied by a description ordefinition that states in words characters thatare purported to differentiate the taxon”

The diagnosis, is the only part of the Wells andWellingon description in doubt.

Richard Wells in various phone conversations allegesthat his (Wells and Wellington 1984) description fitsthis, in that even if his diagnosis fails, it “purports” todifferentiate the taxon and that is good enough.

“Purport” is defined earlier in this paper.

Aplin says that under his interpretation of the code theWells and Wellington description fails.

My personal view is that the description of saxacola,does fit within the guidelines of Article 13.1.1 (on it’smost liberal of interpretations) on the basis that Wellsand Wellington could argue that by referring their newtaxon to images of the same taxon and the otherspecies they say are likely to be confused with it, (intheir description) they have compared the new taxonwith that it is likely to be confused with. Wells andWellington could also argue that they have notconsidered congeners (as recognized by them at thetime) as the differences are obvious and not neededto be diagnosed.

This is of course a subjective judgment, butunfortunately on which it all seems to turn.

Having said the above, most Australian herpetologistsdo not recognize the name “saxacola” and perhapsultimate resolution of the issue will be through a specificpetition to the ICZN.

This in my view should happen sooner rather than laterin order to resolve any potential confusion.

So as to enable readers to properly ascertain therelative merits of Aplin’s argument against saxacola,as compared to the potential arguments in favor ofusage of the name, I have reprinted the relevantpassage from Wells and Wellington 1984 in it’s entiretyand unedited below:

“PYTHONIDAE

ANTARESIA Wells and Wellington, 1984

Antaresia childreni (Gray, 1842)

Antaresia gilberti (Gray, 1842)

Antaresia maculosus (Peters, 1873)

Antaresia perthensis (Stull, 1932)

Antaresia saxacola sp. Nov.

Holotype: An adult specimen in the Australian

Museum R60304. Collected at 6 km north ofBarrow Creek, (on Stuart Highway) NorthernTerritory (21 04’S X 134 10’E) on 16 January,1977 by Peter Rankin and Grant Husband.

Diagnosis: A member of the Antaresia childrenicomplex most closely related to Antaresiagilberti and believed confined to centralAustralia. Antaresia saxacola is Figured inCogger (1983:Plates 174 and 409 fromWilcannia, New South Wales). Gow (1977,Snakes of the Darwin Area) illustrates itscongener Antaresia childreni. The holotype ofAntaresia saxacola measures 102.5 cmsnout-vent length and 9.6 cm to tail length.

Etymology: The name refers to its essentially rock-dwelling habits.”

The above was reprinted due to the general difficultymost herpetologists have in acquiring original copiesof the relevant Wells and Wellington paper.

CHONDROPYTHON MEYER 1874

Designation of so-called “Green Pythons” in the genusChondropython has been the normal situation amongtaxonomists for most of the past 100 years. Havingsaid this, in recent times a number of taxonomists lumpthe Green Pythons in the genus Morelia, noting theobvious affinities between the two groups.

Hobbyists still call the snakes “Chondro’s” regardlessof what scientific name they use.

Allowing for the latter placement of these snakes inthe supergenus “Morelia”, these snakes remain outsidethe core Morelia group of “Carpet Pythons”, with theAustraliasis snakes (so-called Scrub Pythons) alsoforming a different group.

If one doesn’t accept the obvious splits to include thegenera Australiasis, Lenhoserus and Chondropython,then all preceding names are available at the subgenuslevel.

For the purposes of this paper and following on fromHoser 2000b, Chondropython is treated here as a fullgenus.

Rawlings and Donellan (2003) in their PhylogeographicAnalysis of the Green Python, yielded results inaccordance with similar studies for other snake generawith similar cross New Guinea distributions, includingAcanthophis (Hoser 1998), Leiopython (Hoser 2000)and Australiasis (Harvey et. al. 2000).

While Hoser 1998 and Hoser 2000b did not relate thefindings with geological evidence in terms of seekingexplanations for results, other authors including Harveyet. al. (2000) have.

That is that as a result of the formation and uplifting ofthe central New Guinea range commencing about 5million years before present, species were split intoallopatric groups which in turn speciated, giving the



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

present day results.

Hence the barriers affecting one species seems tohave similarly affected others, giving a near mirrorimage distribution patterns for the various pythongenera (as diagnosed by Hoser 2000b) and alsoperhaps elapid groups as well.

That Rawlings and Donellan found evidence to supporttwo species of Green Python was not a surprise andhad been anticipated by hobbyist keepers for decades.

They wrote:

“The pattern of relationships found for mitochondrialand nuclear genes suggests the presence of twospecies of M. viridis, one present north of the centralcordillera and the other present in Southern NewGuinea and Australia.”

Their mtDNA evidence in terms of the outlier Australianpopulation concurred with Hoser 2000b and McDowell1975 in that while it had clear affinities to the southernNew Guinea snakes, they were derived from them inrelatively recent geological time and by a migrationsouth from the main population.

Hobbyist keepers in Europe and the USA were wellaware of the different pattern morphs from differentlocations over many years, including differencesbetween those from north and south of the maindividing range.

While Rawlings and Donellan 2003 didn’t concernthemselves with nomenclature of the regional formsof Green Python, all taxa have been named at thespecies level. This contradicts Rawlings et. al. 2008,p. 604, who state the northern New Guinea taxon is“unnamed”, when in fact it was named in 1875 byMeyer. Furthermore one of two obvious subspecies,the Australian Green Python (Chondropython viridisshireenae) Hoser 2003 has also been named.

A second highly distinct form of Green Python, hithertounnamed and from Normanby Island, Milne BayProvince, PNG, is formally described for the first timehere as the subspecies Chondropython viridisadelynhoserae subsp. nov.

That these snakes differ from other Chondropythonhas been speculated for some time. However untilrecently I had not seen any specimens in life or goodquality photos of specimens in life. DNA evidence asprovided by Rawlings and Donnellan 2003 alsosupports the hypothesis that these snakes differ fromother Chondropython and are reproductively isolatedfrom them and have been for some time.

For the record, Chondropython pulcher Sauvage 1878,is a synonym of C. azureus Meyer 1875 being derivedfrom the same general region as C. azureus.

CHONDROPYTHON VIRIDIS ADELYNHOSERAESUBSP. NOV.

Holotype: A specimen in the Australian Museum

R129716, from Normanby Island, Milne Bay, PapuaNew Guinea.

Diagnosis: This is the form of Green Python restrictedto Normanby Island, Milne Bay Province, PNG.

It is separated from all other Chondropython in NewGuinea and Australia by it’s adult dorsal pattern of(smallish) white blotches that in the main do not coverthe spinal ridge, as seen in all other Australian andother PNG Chondropython.

Sometimes Chondropython from elsewhere will havesimilar blotches, but invariably, these snakes eitheralso have a mid-dorsal line or dots (not seen inadelynhoserae), or the blotches run well over the spinal(mid dorsal) mid-line.

MtDNA for the holotype was examined by Rawlingsand Donellan 2003 and compared with otherChondropython yielding traits broadly in line with C.viridis viridis (but a three per cent sequencedivergence) (see p. 41 their paper). Having said that,it also shared five nucleotide substitutions that wouldotherwise be synapomorphies of the northern lineage,one of which is an indel.

This result in terms of mtDNA and base pair analysis,as published by Rawlings and Donellan 2003, formsan additional and/or alternative diagnostic means ofidentifying and separating C. v. adelynhoserae subsp.nov. from other Chondropython.

In other words, the taxon C. v. adelynhoserae subsp.nov. can be separated from other C. viridis by thedegree of base pair separation/divergence of mtDNAand/or nuclear DNA as detailed by Rawlings andDonellan 2003.

This is the only Chondropython taxon found onNormanby Island, Milne Bay Province, PNG and isallopatric to all other C. viridis or C. azureus.

Etymology: Named after the elder daughter of thisauthor, Adelyn (pronounced: Adder-lyn) Hoser, in honorof her valuable education work at educational reptiledemonstrations and the like, including from the age offive safely handling venomoid versions of the world’sfive deadliest snake genera, namely Parademansia,Oxyuranus, Pseudonaja, Notechis and Acanthophisand most importantly after five years of doing so, neverhaving had a single bite! This emphatically proves thatthe best way to avoid snakebites is to be nice to them.

CHONDROPYTHON SUMARY

Based on what is now believed to be allopatricdistribution and factors outlined elsewhere, the namedtaxa of Green Python are now as follows:

Chondropython viridis (Schlegel 1872),southern New Guinea generally and offshoreIslands.

Chondropython viridis shireenae Hoser 2003,Australia only.



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Chondropython viridis adelynhoserae subsp.nov. (this paper), Normanby Island, NewGuinea.

Chondropython azureus Meyer 1875, NewGuinea north of the central range, includingoffshore islands.

Maxwell (2005), gave detailed information about local“races” of Chondropython, including from islands.However noting the extreme phenotypic variation ofthe genus and the non-sampling of intermediatepopulations (when available), and the added variablesof local adaptations to altitude and so on resulting inlocalized colour variants and the like, there is noevidence that any of the forms identified in the bookwarrant recognition beyond the taxa (to subspecieslevel) identified in this paper based on availableevidence, most notably that of Rawlings and Donnellan2003.

Notwithstanding this, the book remains mandatoryreading for those with an interest in the genus.

ASPIDITES TAXONOMY

Various geographical races were recognized longbefore Hoser 2000, formally named some of them (seerelevant references in Hoser 2000). According to KenAplin in Storr, Smith and Johnstone (2002), two namesfirst used by Hoser (2000), Aspidites melanocephalusdaveii and Aspidites ramsayi richardjonesii are “nomennudem” on the basis that they only differentiate taxaon the basis of distribution and that alone is not adistinguishing character. Furthermore the argumentis advanced that both names are invalid, as essentiallysimilar diagnostic features (excluding distribution) areused for other newly named taxa, namely A.melanocephalus adelynensis and A. ramsayi panoptesboth names of which are accepted as “available” fortheir said taxa and take precedence on the basis thatthey appear before the “unavailable” names in theoriginal paper and hence have “page priority”.

Unlike in the case of Antaresia saxacola, for whichthere is an alternative name available on the basis ofit’s (allegedly) being a “nomen nudem”, namely A.stimsoni Smith 1985, there are as yet no other availablenames for the Aspidites taxa identified by Hoser bydistribution (alone?) under the above “nomen nudem”names.

Hence in order to stabilize the taxonomy andnomenclature for the genus, the two relevant taxa, thenorth-west Woma and the north-west Black-headedPython are both formally named and described here.

Rather than have any further destabilization of thenomenclature, different name combinations areadopted for the relevant taxa for “new” descriptions ofthem.

This is to ensure stability of names used from now on.

This is important as with newly legalized collection andbreeding of these pythons in the three main states ofWA, NT and SA, increasing numbers are now captiveand being studied and it is important that biologicalinformation obtained is correctly attributed to thecorrect regional taxa.

Furthermore a diagnosis of the genus as a whole isprovided here, which is largely similar to that printedin Hoser (2000) however with important changes andupdates.

While Aplin did not state a reliance on Article 24.2.2.of the ICZN rules (ICZN 1999), in his work in terms ofdetermining which Aspidites subspecies names tookprecedence in terms of being the available name, ifone were to accept that he in fact relied upon thisarticle, then he spelt out those actually published firstin terms of either page or position priority.

Assuming however that Aplin has not sought to be a“first reviser”, which appears the reasonable positionbased on his writings, and so as to remove anyambiguity, I seek herein to rely on section 24.2.2. ofthe code to be the “first reviser” and to assign validavailable names on the basis of the same page orpositional priority in the original Hoser 2000 paper.

In other words the names to be hereafter regarded asavailable from Hoser 2000 on the basis of section24.2.2 of the ICZN rules are, Aspidites melanocephalusadelynensis Hoser 2000, and Aspidites ramsayipanoptes Hoser 2000.

Hence the end result is the same whether or not oneaccepts that I am in fact the “first reviser”.GENUS ASPIDITES PETERS 1876

Aspidites is a genus of large terrestrial Pythonsendemic to continental Australia. These pythons arereadily distinguished from all other Australian speciesby the apparent absence of pits on the labial or rostralscales, although in Black-headed Pythons (A.melanocephalus) at least, a tiny vertical slit on therostral region is apparently equivalent. Other diagnostictraits are the absence of teeth on the premaxilla andenlarged symmetrical shields on the top of the head.Prior to now, most authorities have divided the genusinto two well-defined species. These are the Black-headed Python (A. melanocephalus) and the Woma(A. ramsayi).The former is separated from the latter by its distinctglossy black head. At best the latter only has blackmarkings on the head. Few authors recognizesubspecies or races. Those that have subdivided theabove species into races or regional variants, includeBarker and Barker (1994a) and Wells and Wellington(1985a). The former recognized different races withoutnaming them, while the latter recognized A. collaris asdescribed by Longman in 1913 (see below).Taxonomy of this genus has gained greater interest in



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

recent years with the introduction of more formalizedreptile-keeper licensing systems in most Australianstates combined with the high prices of specimenstraded. Authorities in some states have taken a strongstand against hybridization of races of snakes, a viewshared by a substantial number of private keepers.

Noting that distinct differences between races ofAspidites are well known and acknowledged and thatfor many years a substantial number of herpetologistshave recognized different races as being at leastdifferent subspecies, it is somewhat surprising that upuntil now no one has put names to these differentraces. Black-headed Pythons and Womas are knownto occur sympatrically in parts of Western Australia,with this author catching both species on the westernedge of the Great Sandy Desert, north of Port Hedland,WA. (refer to photos published in Hoser 1989).There is presently no evidence of cross-breedingbetween the two species either in the wild or captivity.However Hoser (2007) demonstrated how easy it wasto extract semen from snakes, including a NTspecimen of A. melanocephalus, for the purposes ofinseminating other snakes of choice, making cross-breeding of taxa far easier than had previously beenthe case.

Smith (1981) also found similar sympatry between bothspecies in Western Australia. Worrell (1963) recordedsympatry between both species in the NorthernTerritory. To date no similar sympatry has beenrecorded in Queensland. That sympatry occursbetween the two species of Aspidites is not altogethersurprising as their habitat preferences are somewhatgeneralist, with the snakes being found in a variety ofhabitat, soil and vegetation types. Biologicalinformation about Aspidites is provided by Cogger(1996), Barker and Barker (1994a), Hoser (1981,1989), Sonneman (1999) Storr, Smith and Johnstone(1986), Worrell (1970) and others.Excellent photos of Aspidites are provided by theauthors named immediately above. Photos of habitatsinhabited by Aspidites are provided by a number ofauthors including Hoser (1989) and Barker and Barker(1994a). Barker and Barker (1994a) provide anexcellent bibliography of cited references on Aspiditesand pythons in general including cases of captivebreeding, breeding data and other useful material. Typematerial for all species listed below has not necessarilybeen inspected by this author, however this author hasinspected a substantial number of specimens includingfrom the type localities given.

SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES OF ASPIDITES NOWRECOGNISED

Aspidites melanocephalus (Krefft, 1864)Aspidites melanocephalus adelynensis Hoser 2000Aspidites melanocephalus rickjonesii subsp. nov. (thispaper) .

Aspidites ramsayi (Macleay, 1882)Aspidites ramsayi panoptes Hoser 2000Aspidites ramsayi neildaveii subp. nov. (this paper)Total of 2 species comprising six subspecies.ASPIDITES MELANOCEPHALUS (KREFFT, 1864)Type locality is Port Dennison (Bowen) in North-eastQueensland. The holotype is held in the BritishMuseum of Natural History (UK). Aspiditesmelanocephalus melanocephalus, the nominatesubspecies, is herein restricted to Queensland andmost parts of the top third of the Northern Territory.Most Black-headed Pythons in captivity are of this form.

ASPIDITES MELANOCEPHALUS ADELYNENSISHOSER 2000.

HOLOTYPE: A specimen at the Western AustralianMuseum, number 51208 from Wyndham, WA Lat: 15°28' Long:128° 06'

PARATYPE: A specimen at the Western AustralianMuseum, number 17115 from 8 km south ofWyndham, WA. Lat: 15° 28' Long:128° 07'

DIAGNOSIS: Known only from Kimberley region ofWA, this population of Black-headed Pythons appearsto be isolated from the population to the south in thePilbara. It is uncertain as to how much gene flow occursbetween this population and that to the east in theadjacent parts of WA and the NT. Aspiditesmelanocephalus adelynensis like A. m. rickjonesii (seebelow) is separated from other Black-headed Pythonsby usually having one loreal, no suboculars and a singlepair of large parietals, while most NT and QueenslandBlack-headed Pythons have 2-4 loreals, 1-2suboculars and 2-4 pairs of parietals. A. m. adelynensisis separated from A. m. rickjonesii by the possessionof yellowish lighter bands as opposed to whitish lighterbands in A. m. rickjonesii.

It is also separated from A. rickjonesii by distribution.It is separated by part of the western flank of the GreatSandy Desert where it meets the WA coast. There areno unusually “high light” specimens of A. m.adelynensis known (as occurs in A. m. rickjonesii).Aspidites melanocephalus rickjonesii subsp. nov. isfurther separated from other A. melanocephalus byit’s smaller adult size (average 180 cm total length inmeasured specimens), versus average of 200 cm totallength in measured specimens of A. melanocephalusadelynensis from further north in WA (The Kimberlyregion) and 210 cm for A. melanocephalusmelanocephalus the taxon from north-east Australia.Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA of A. m. adelynensiswill further ascertain the differences between this andthe other Black-headed Pythons, in particular, howmuch genetic interaction has occurred between thispopulation and those to the east.

ETYMOLOGY: Named after Adelyn Hoser, theauthor’s daughter. See elsewhere this paper for more



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

details. .ASPIDITES MELANOCEPHALUS RICKJONESIISUBSP. NOV.

HOLOTYPE: A specimen at the Western AustralianMuseum, number 46170 from Tom Price WA Lat:22°39 Long:117° 40'.

PARATYPE: A specimen at the Western AustralianMuseum, number 12268 from near Port Hedland, WA.Lat: 20° 19' Long: 118° 34'.

DIAGNOSIS: Known only from Pilbara region of WA,this population of Black-headed Pythons appears tobe isolated from the population to the north in theKimberley Ranges. Some but not all specimens of A.m. rickjonesii are of a distinctly lighter than usualground colour. However this is not a general diagnosticcharacteristic on it’s own.

What is diagnostic of this taxon as opposed to all otherA. melanocephalus is that the lighter cross-bands havea distinctive whitish hue, as opposed to the yellowishhue in the lighter cross-bands of all other A.melanocephalus.

Aspidites melanocephalus rickjonesii like A. m.adelynensis (see above) is separated from other Black-headed Pythons by usually having one loreal, nosuboculars and a single pair of large parietals, whilemost NT and Queensland Black-headed Pythons (A.m. melanocephalus) have 2-4 loreals, 1-2 subocularsand 2-4 pairs of parietals.

In this taxon Aspidites melanocephalus rickjonesiisubsp. nov. the large parietals are more circular inshape than those seen in both the other subspecies,which are either jagged in shape) (as seen in A. m.adelynensis) or as distinctly smallish circular withirregular edging/irregular shape in A. melanocephalusmelanocephalus from eastern parts of Australia.Aspidites melanocephalus rickjonesii subsp. nov. isfurther separated from other A. melanocephalus byit’s smaller adult size (average 180 cm total length inmeasured specimens), versus average of 200 cm totallength in measured specimens of A. melanocephalusadelynensis from further north in WA (The Kimberlyregion) and 210 cm for A. melanocephalusmelanocephalus the taxon from north-east Australia.This author has caught both lighter and more ‘normal’coloured specimens in the Goldsworthy/Shay Gapareas of WA. In the northern part of the Pilbara region,the Black-headed Pythons seem to be more commonin the hillier areas, while the Womas (A. ramsayi)appear to be found more in the red sand-dune habitats.A. m. rickjonesii is separated from A. m. adelynensisby distribution, being separated by part of the westernflank of the Great Sandy Desert where it meets theWA coast. These same differences were identified byBarker and Barker (1994a).

Wild caught specimens of A. m. rickjonesii caught have

also demonstrated behavioral differences thatdiagnose it as separate from other A. melanocephalus.Unlike the other subspecies that tend to rear up andhiss when caught, this trait is only seen in this taxonwhen harassed, as opposed to merely encountered.Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA of A. m. rickjonesiiwill further ascertain the differences between this andthe other Black-headed Pythons.

ETYMOLOGY: Named after a NSW Member ofParliament, Richard Jones, also known as “RickJones” for his ongoing contributions towards wildlifeconservation, integrity in government and othermatters. An honest and decent parliamentarian suchas Richard Jones is a rare thing in Australia. That isalso why he isn’t with a major party.

ASPIDITES RAMSAYI MACLEAY, 1882The type locality is Fort Bourke in NSW. The snakelater described by Longman in 1913 as Aspiditescollaris from near Cunnamulla, Queensland, isbelieved to be the same race as the nominate formand is treated here is synonymous. The distancebetween Bourke and Cunnamulla is not substantial.Habitats, including soils and vegetation regimes andherpetofaunas in the two areas are essentially similar.Thus the type form of Woma is in fact the EasternAustralian form. It is distinctly more grey in dorsalcolour (as opposed to yellowish brown) than both thewestern subspecies and has far more prominent darkmarkings over the eyes as compared to more westernspecimens which may or may not have such markings.While distributional information for Womas in Australiais patchy, partly in reflection of the relatively remoteareas that they occur in, most herpetologists believethat it is not continuous throughout the arid parts ofAustralia. For the purposes of this paper, and untilinformation to the contrary is received, the nominatesubspecies, Aspidites ramsayi ramsayi is hereinrestricted to inland parts of NSW and adjacentQueensland, essentially confined to the upper DarlingRiver basin.

All three subspecies of Aspidites ramsayi are believedto be allopatric.

ASPIDITES RAMSAYI PANOPTES HOSER 2000HOLOTYPE: A specimen at the Western AustralianMuseum, number 43459 from Burracoppin, WA Lat:31° 24' Long:118° 29'.

PARATYPE: A specimen at the Western AustralianMuseum, number 17662 from Merredin, WA. Lat: 31°31' Long:118° 14'

DIAGNOSIS: This race of Womas has a lower averageventral and subcaudal count than the main race(Barker and Barker 1984). Unlike the nominate form,A. r. panoptes does not usually retain the juveniledarkening over the eyes in adults. This latter trait is atrait shared with A. r. richardjonesii, also of WA, (see



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

below). This is the south-western Woma. It isseparated from all other Womas by distribution (Smith1981).

Hoser 2000 stated that the population is believed tobe isolated from the main centralian population by abelt of heavy soils between Karalee and Zanthus, WA(Smith, 1981). In the absence of evidence to thecontrary, this author accepts Smith’s proposition (seebelow). In south-western Australia at least, this south-western population appears to be in terminal decline(Brian Bush, pers. comm.). The probable causesinclude introduced predators such as foxes and cats,habitat destruction and perhaps other unknowncauses.

Aplin in Storr, Smith and Johnstone (2002) noted thathabitat in south-west WA had changed dramaticallywithin the last 16,000 years and as a result, it’d bereasonable to expect that the present isolation of thesouth-west WA population from the nearby Nullaborpopulation is recent in geological terms and thereforethe snakes there should be attributed to the sametaxon.

In terms of physical traits, the southern Australianpopulation, as in that found in South Australia, but notincluding red-soiled areas in the state’s furthest north,should also be attributed to this subspecies in theabsence of evidence to the contrary.

The basis of this assertion is the physical similarity ofthe snakes as mentioned elsewhere in this paper, butincluding physical size, morphology, scalation, pattern,demeanor and known biology.

The specimens from red-soil areas of the NT andnorth-west are of a distinctly smaller and more gracilerace and are described as a separate subspeciesbelow.


ETYMOLOGY: The subspecies was named panoptesdue to popularity of the scientific name for a speciesof monitor lizard among some Australians. ThereforeI have bowed to their wishes and legitimately namedanother reptile by this name. ICZN rules allow speciesfrom different family and genus to carry the samespecies name.

ASPIDITES RAMSAYI NEILDAVIEII SUBSP. NOV.

HOLOTYPE: A specimen at the Western AustralianMuseum, number 34070 from near Port Hedland, WALat: 20° 19' Long:118° 34'.

DIAGNOSIS: Unlike A. r. ramsayi, this form loses thejuvenile pattern (of darkening) around the eyes atmaturity and separates these taxa. This is diagnosticfor the subspecies. While this trait is also diagnosticfor A. r. panoptes (see description above), the twoforms are separated by a vast distance, including most

of the Pilbara region. A. r. neildavieii is also separatedfrom A. r. ramsayi by distribution.

Previously it was thought that the form was only knownfrom the Western edge of the Great Sandy Desert inWA. This population (and subspecies) is actuallythought to extend into central Australia, being commonthroughout most of the “red center”.A. ramsayi neildavieii subsp. nov. is separated fromA. r. panoptes by it’s distinctive yellowish hue in it’sbase colour as opposed to brownish in A. r. panoptes.

A. r. panoptes also has cross-bands that are indistinctas compared to A. ramsayi neildavieii subsp. nov.Each of the previous characters alone and/or incombination separate these two subspecies taxa.A. ramsayi neildavieii is also separated from A. r.panoptes and all other A. ramsayi by it’s considerablymore placid behavior.

Wild caught specimens of other A. ramsayi will tendto rear up and even strike when first caught. This isnot the case for A. ramsayi neildavieii subsp. nov.,which rarely if ever rears up or attempts to bite whenfirst caught.

It was thought until recently that Centralian populationsappeared to have characteristics intermediate betweenthe Easternmost and Westernmost populations of A.ramsayi, that is now thought not to be the case andthose specimens are generally attributable to this taxonand not the nominate A. ramsayi ramsayi.

A. ramsayi ramsayi is separated from other A. ramsayisubspecies by more grey in dorsal colour (as opposedto yellowish brown) than both the western subspeciesand has far more prominent dark markings over theeyes as compared to more western specimens whichmay or may not have such markings and if they do, toa markedly lesser extent than seen in A. ramsayiramsayi.

Of the various Aspidites ramsayi subspecies, A.ramsayi neildavieii subsp. nov. has the smallestaverage adult size, being 150 cm total length in adults,versus 160-180 cm total length for all other namedsubspecies measured, or for which specimen/groupmeasurements were available.

These average size measurements have beencorroborated against the now sizeable number ofAspidites ramsayi of all regional subspecies fromacross Australia now in captivity.While some Aspidites ramsayi neildavieii may have alimited amount of darkening around the eyes(especially in juveniles), this is never to the standardextent seen in A. ramsayi ramsayi from inland EasternAustralia.

Captive A. ramsayi neildavieii average 8-10 eggs perclutch versus 12-16 for reported cases of thesubspecies from mid-south Australia, herein alsoreferred to as A. r. panoptes.



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

The smaller clutch sizes seems to be a direct reflectionof smaller adult sizes, with individual egg massesapparently being generally similar.

The demarcation between A. ramsayi neildavieii subsp.nov. and A. ramsayi ramsayi is believed to be in theregion of Western Queensland, south of Mount Isa,through a wide area known to have Black-headedPythons (A. melanocephalus), but not A. ramsayi.


ETYMOLOGY: Named after Neil Davie, founder of theVictorian Association of Amateur Herpetologists(VAAH) for ongoing services to herpetology, includingthe period beyond his involvement in that society,including in his work for conservation and his educationrelated work with reptiles.

SUMMARY

The papers Hoser 2000b, 2003a, 2004a and this paper,including updates and changes indicated within each,do between them give an accurate overview of thesystematics of the pythons of Australasia andelsewhere.

Based on what’s known about the population dynamicsand taxonomy of all pythons in the Australasian regionin the last five million years, combined with thepublished results of Schleip 2008a, it makes sense tocontinue to recognise the genus Leiopython in theformat given by Hoser 2000b, even if one were to shiftthe two species, albertisi and hoserae to the genusBothrochilus as done by Rawlings et. al. (2008).Schleip has provided evidence for the continuedrecognition of the two subspecies of L. albertisi namedby Hoser in 2000b and at the same time providedlimited evidence for the potential recognition of at leastthree other subspecies as named by Schleip in his2008 paper.

There is however at the present time, no evidence tosupport the contention that L. albertisi as recognisedby Hoser 2000b should be split into five or more verysimilar species at the species level using any liberalinterpretation of any liberal species concept.

Morphological data does not support any such splitand so far based on the quoted studies above, thereseems to be no prospect of molecular data supportingany such split either. Unless and until any suchevidence is published in a clear and unequivocal form,Leiopython as generally recognised should beregarded as a genus comprising two distinct speciesonly, namely L. albertisi and L. hoserae.

The paper by the self-admitted “amateur herpetologist”Wulf Schleip (2008a) was sloppy, desceptive andamateurish and written by a novice reptile enthusiastwho was way out of his depth and who was badlyadvised by his closest associates who clearly soughta pre-determined outcome, regardless of the evidence.

In the first instance it should have been totally rejectedby the editors of the Journal of Herpetology as a caseof “Big Name Hunting” by a man who (presumablyunknown to the journal’s editors) has a history ofdishonesty, gross misrepresentations and at times whomakes outright lies.

Schleip has been found to be culpably guilty of creatingunnecessary confusion in terms of the taxonomy ofan otherwise well-known and well-defined group ofsnakes that has been competently examined bynumerous recognised experts in the past.

Schleip has been reckless by presenting a poorlywritten paper which by his own admissions within it,does nothing to stabilize taxonomy of the group andleaves no options other than for another person torevisit the taxonomy of the “species” albertisi with aview to either creating yet more “species” via yet more“taxonomic exaggeration” for the snakes he claims areof indeterminate taxonomic status, or via the moleculardata he should have provided with his 2008 paper, theeventual (and at this stage likely) position being thathis newly created “species” will again be relegated tothe synonymy with L. albertisi (at the species level).

The use of dishonest and improper methods by Schleipand his closest associates, the convicted reptilesmuggler David Williams and questionable academicWolfgang Wüster, as well as potential emulation byothers should seen as a threat and impediment tolegitimate scientific inquiry and associated search forthe truth.

The adverse effects of their actions will invariablyimpact far beyond the boundaries of routine discourseor debate by scientists. It will descend into areas asdiverse as conservation, waste of public resources,legislation, defamation, law courts, impropercensorship of legitimate and appropriate views,unwarranted confusion among disinterested thirdparties and elsewhere.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Numerous herpetologists and others, including toomany to be named here provided access to papers,specimens and other materials as requested, includingmaterial that by nature is not herpetological, but assistsin related projects. My family contributed the most byputting up with many hours of my absence as I dealtwith various herpetological matters which invariablycost as opposed to earn money.

REFERENCES

Allison, A. 2006. Reptiles and Amphibians of the Trans-Fly Region, New Guinea. Pacific Biological Survey,Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu,Hawaii, 96817-2704, USA

Aplin, K.P. & S.C. Donnellan (1999) An extendeddescription of the Pilbara Death Adder, Acanthophiswellsi Hoser (Serpentes: Elapidae), with notes on the



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Desert Death Adder, A. pyrrhus Boulenger, andidentification of a possible hybrid zone. Records of theWestern Australian Museum 19: 277-298.

Barker, D. G. 2008. E-mail to Raymond Hoser.December.

Barker, D. G. and Barker, T. M. 1994, Pythons of theWorld, Volume 1, Australia, Advanced VivariumSystems Inc, California, USA:189 pp.

Bioone, 2008. Abstract of Schleip 2008 Leiopythonpaper, hosted on the internet at: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1670%2F06-182R5.1

Borrell, B. 2007. Big Name Hunters. Nature 446: 15March:253-255.

Cogger, H. G., Cameron, E. E. and Cogger, H. M. 1983.Zoological Catalogue of Australia (1) Amphibia andReptilia, Australian Government Publishing Service,Canberra, ACT, Australia. 319 pp.

Ehmann, H. 1992, Encyclopedia of Australian Animals- Reptiles, Angus and Robertson, Sydney,Australia:495 pp. (Series editor Ronald Strahan).

Fry, B. G. et. al. 2002. Electrospray liquidchromatography/mass spectrometry fingerprinting ofAcanthophis (death adder) venoms: taxonomic andtoxinological implications. Rapid Communications inMass Spectrometry:16:600-608.

Gaboon 2008. Post on 21 January at: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/87176-support-new-guinea-snakebite-research-2.html and later posts.

Hoser, R. T. 1989. Australian Reptiles and Frogs.Pierson and Co., Mosman, NSW, 240 pp.

Hoser, R. T. 1993. Smuggled: The Underground Tradein Australia’s Wildlife. Apollo Publishing, Moss Vale,NSW. 160 pp.

Hoser, R. T. 1996. Smuggled-2: Wildlife Trafficking,Crime and Corruption in Australia. Kotabi Publishing,Doncaster, Victoria, 3108, Australia. 280 pp.

Hoser, R. T. 1998. Death Adders (Genus Acanthophis):An overview, including descriptions of Five new speciesand One subspecies. Monitor - Journal of the VictorianHerpetological Society 9 (2):20-41. (online via linksfrom http://www.herp.net)Hoser, R.T. 2000a. A new species of snake (Serpentes:Elapidae) from Irian Jaya. Litteratura Serpentium20(6):178-186. (online via links from http://w w w . h e r p . n e t )Hoser, R. T. 2000b. A revision of the AustralasianPythons. Ophidia Review 1:7–27. (online via links fromhttp://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R. T. 2001a. ‘A current assessment of the statusof the snakes of the genera Cannia and Pailsus,including descriptions of three new subspecies fromthe Northern Territory and Western Australia, Australia.’Boydii - Journal of the Herpetological Society of

Queensland Incorporated, July 2001:26-60. (online vialinks from http://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R. T. 2001a Pailsus - a story of herpetology,science, politics, pseudoscience, more politics andscientific fraud. Crocodilian - Journal of the VictorianAssociation of Amateur Herpetologists - 2 (10): 18-31, September 2001. (online via links from http://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R.T. 2002. Death Adders (Genus: Acanthophis):An Updated overview, including descriptions of 3 NewIsland species and 2 New Australian Subspecies.Crocodilian. September 2002: 5-11, 16-22, 24-30.(online via links from http://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R.T. 2003a. Five new Australian pythons.Macarthur Herpetological Society Journal Issue 40:4-9. (online via links from http://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R. 2003b. The rough-scaled snakes, genusTropidechis (Serpentes: Elapidae), including thedescription of a new species from far northQueensland, Australia. Crocodilian, 4 (2): 11-14.(online via links from http://www.herp.net)Hoser, R. T. 2004a. A reclassification of the Pythoninaeincluding the description of two new Genera, two newspecies and nine new subspecies. Crocodilian4(3,4):21-40. (online via links from http://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R. T. 2004a. Surgical Removal of VenomGlands in Australian Elapid Snakes: The creation ofvenomoids. Herptile 29(1):37-52. (online via links fromhttp://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R. T. 2004c. Silcone snakes cause sensationin Australia and elsewhere. Hard Evidence (November2004) 4(6):25-29. (online via links from http://www.herp.net)

Hoser, R. T. 2004d. Post at: http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,520074dated 20 July.

Hoser, R. T. 2007. A new technique for artificialinsemination in squamates. Bulletin of the ChicagoHerpetological Society (January 2008) 43 (1):1-9.

Harvey, M.B., Barker, D. G., Ammerman, L. K. andChippendale, P. T. 2000. ‘Systematics of pythons ofthe Morelia amethistina complex (Serpentes: Boidae)with the description of three new species’,Herpetological Monographs (The Herpetologist’sLeague Incorporated), 14:139-185.

Hubrecht A.A.W. 1879. Notes III on a new genus andspecies of Pythonidae from Salawatti. Notes from theLeyden Museum 14-15.

Hunter, S. 2008. Glue traps being sold to kill snakes.Posting at: http://www.aussiereptilekeeper.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=55730#55730dated 24 December 2008.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature(ICZN)(1999) International Code of Zoological



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

Nomenclature, (Fourth Edition) International Trust forZoological Nomenclature, London, UK. (online at: http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp)

J. Craig Venter Institute 2008. Website at: http://w w w . j c v i . o r g / r e p t i l e s /species.php?genus=Tropidechis&species=sadlieridownloaded on 22 December 2008.

Keogh, J. S., Barker, D. G. and Shine, R. 2001. Heavilyexploited but poorly known: systematics andbiogeography of commercially harvested pythons(Python curtus group) in Southeast Asia. BiologicalJournal of the Linnean Society (2001), 73: 113–129.With 4 ?gures. doi: (available online at: http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/Scot t /PDF%20Fi les/2001.Keoghetal.P.curtus.pdf)

Kluge, A. G. 1993, Aspidites and the Phylogeny ofPythonine Snakes, Records of the Australian Museum,Supplement 19, 1 December:77 pp.

Kuch, U, J. S. Keogh, J Weigel, L. A. Smith, D. Mebs.2005. Phylogeography of Australia’s king brown snake(Pseudechis australis) reveals Pliocene divergenceand Pleistocene dispersal of a top predator.Naturwissenschaften 92:121-127.

Lawson, R., Slowinski, J. & Burbrink, F. 2004. Amolecular approach to discerning the phylogeneticplacement of the enigmatic snake Xenophidionschaeferi among the Alethinophidia. Journal ofZoology, 263, 285-294.

Lewis, W. 2007a. Statement re David Williams andAustoxin, dated 17 December.

Lewis, W. 2007b. Letter to the ABC re David Williams,dated 18 December.

Magistrate’s Court of Queensland, Cairns. Transcriptof hearing and sentencing of QNPWS v David JohnWilliams. Queensland Government, Australia.

Marshall, S. 2008. PNG Pharmacy attacks ABC overunsafe medication exposure. ABC News releaseposted online at: http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2172264.htm?section=justin

Maxwell, G. 2005. The More complete Chondro. EcoHerpetological Publishing, USA: 317 pp.

McDowell, S. B. 1975, ‘A catalogue of the snakes ofNew Guinea and the Solomons, with special referenceto those in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Part 2.Anilioidae and Pythonidae’, Journal of Herpetology,9(1):1-79.

O’Shea, M. 1996. A Guide to the Snakes of PapuaNew Guinea, Independent Publishing Group, PortMoresby, PNG. 251 pp.O’Shea, M. 2007a. Boas and Pythons of the World.Princeton University Press.

O’Shea, M. 2007b. Wokabout long kisim poisen snek.Part One. Herptile (September) 32(3):92-108

Peters W and G Doria. 1878. Catalogo dei retilli e deibatraci raccolti da O. Beccari, L. M. D’Alberts e A. A.Bruijn. nella sotto-regione Austro-Malese. Annali delMuseo Civico de Storia Naturale di Genova. ser.1(13):401-403, plate III, Fig. 2.

Pillon, Y. and Chase, M. W. 2006. Taxonomicexaggeration and its effects on orchid conservation.Conservation Biology 21:263-265.Rawlings, L. H., Barker, D. G. & Donnellan, S. C. 2004.Phylogenetic relationships of the Australo-PapuanLiasis pythons (Reptilia: Macrostomata), based onmitochondrial DNA. Australian Journal of Zoology, 52(2), 215-227.

Rawlings, L. H. and Donnellan, S. C. 2003.Phylogeographic Analysis of the Green Python (Moreliaviridis) reveals cryptic diversity. MolecularPhylogenetics and Evolution 27(2003):36-44.Rawlings, L. H., Rabosky, D. L., Donnellan, S. C. andHutchinson, M. N. 2008. Python phylogenetics:inference from morphology and mitochondrial DNA.Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93, 603–619.

Schleip, W. 2004a. Post at: http://www.herpbreeder.com/ dated 19 November.

Schleip, W. 2004b. Post at: http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,521737dated 22 July.

Schleip, W. 2004c. Post at: http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,531946dated 2 August.

Schleip, W. et. al. 2007 – Numerous edits to Wikipediapage for “Leiopython” as hosted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiopython, including the linkededit history for that page as downloaded on 12December 2008.

Schleip 2007b. Website and all pages hosted on theinternet server “www.leiopython.de”, as downloadedon 24 June 2007 (Note: The site remained essentiallyunchanged until late 2008 – see Schleip 2008c below)

Schleip, W. 2008a. Revision of the Genus LeiopythonHubrecht 1879 (Serpentes: Pythonidae) with theRedescription of Taxa Recently Described by Hoser(2000) and the Description of New Species. Journalof Herpetology 42(4): 645–667.

Schleip, W. 2008b. Website and all pages hosted onthe internet server after 10 December 2008 to endDecember 2008, including revisions at:“www.leiopython.de”.

Schleip, W. 2008c. Website and all pages hosted onthe internet server on 7 December 2008 at:“www.leiopython.de”.

Shea, G. M. 1995. A taxonomic revision of theCyclodomorphus casuarinae complex (Squamata:Scincidae). Records of the Australian Museum 47(1):



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

83-115.

Shine, R. (1980), Ecology of the Australian DeathAdder Acanthophis antarcticus (Elapidae): Evidencefor convergence with the viperidae. Herpetologica, 36(4), pp. 281-289.

Smith, L. A. 1981. A revision of the genera Aspiditesand Python (Serpentes:Boidae) in Western Australia,Records of the Western Australian Museum 9(2):211-226.

Staff Reporters, 2008. PNG Bites back at Aust. TV.Report published on the front page of the print versionof Post Courier on 25 Feb and reposted online at: http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20080225/news01.htmStarkey, B. 2008. E-mail to R. Hoser dated 1 Feb 2008at 22:12:40.

Stimson, A. F. 1969. ‘Liste der rezenten Amphibien undReptilien. Boidae (Boinae + Bolyeriinae + Loxoceminae+ Pythoninae)’. Das Tierreich, Lief. 89: i-xi, 1-49.

Storr, G. M., Smith, L. A. and Johnstone, R. E. 2002.Snakes of Western Australia. Revised edition. WesternAustralian Museum, Perth, WA. 309 pp.

Stull, O. G. 1932, ‘Five new subspecies of the familyBoidae.’, Occasional Papers of the Boston Society ofNatural History, 8:25-30, pl. 1-2.

Stull, O. G. 1935, ‘A checklist of the family Boidae’,Proceedings of the Boston Society of NaturalHistory:387- 408, pl. 13.

Swan, M. (ed) 2007. Keeping and Breeding AustralianPythons. Mike Swan Herp Books, Victoria,Australia.336 pp.

Underwood, G. and Stimson, A. F. 1990. ‘Aclassification of the pythons (Serpentes:Pythoninae)’,Journal of Zoology, London, 221:565-603.

Various authors 1970. Webster’s New TwentiethCentury Dictionary, World Publishing Company, USA,

Weins, J. J. 2004. What is speciation and how shouldwe study it? American Naturalist 163:914-923.

Wells, R. W. 2002. Taxonomy of the genusAcanthophis (Reptilia: Elapidae) in Australia. AustralianBiodiversity Record. 5 (March):16 pp.

Wells, R. W. 2005. Post at: http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=976434,976914dated 29 December.

Wells, R. W. and Wellington, C. R. 1983. A synopsisof the class Reptilia in Australia, Australian Journal ofHerpetology, 1 (3-4):73-129.Wells, R. W. and Wellington, C. R. 1984. Aclassification of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Australia.Australian Journal of Herpetology, SupplementarySeries, (1):1-61.

Williams, D. J. 1997. Appeal documents, Qld NPWSVs David John Williams.

Williams, D. J. 2008. Two posts dated 14 February

2008 at: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/87176-support-new-guinea-snakebite-research-2.html andalso posted at the same time at “aussiepythons.com”and numerous other internet chat forums.

Williams, D. J., Jenson, S., Nimorakiotakis, B. andWinkel, K. D. 2005. Venomous bites and stings inPapua New Guinea, Australian Venom Research Unit(AVRU), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 358 pp.

Williams, D. J. and Starkey, B. A. 1999a. ‘Commentson the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)’, Undateddocument from the internet site http://www.uq.edu.au/~ddbfry/index.html:5 pp (note the url) - “Version 1”dated 1 November 1998 (date only at foot ofdocument).

Williams, D. J. and Starkey, B. A. 1999b ‘Commentson the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)’, Undateddocument from the internet site Kingsnake.com “ at:http://www.Kingsnake.com/toxinology/snakes/

SNAKEBUSTERSAUSTRALIA’S BEST REPTILES

IS PROUD TO BEASSOCIATED WITH

THE SECOND ISSUE OFAUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL

OF HERPETOLOGY.

www.snakebusters.net



Hos

er 2

009

- Aus

tral

asia

n Jo

urna

l of H

erpe

tolo

gy 2

:1-3

4

taxonomy.html (note the url) and later “The VenomousSnake Forum” January 29, 2001 at 01:50:13: pp.“Version 2”. (Actually published in this altered form inJanuary 2001)

Williams, D. J. and Starkey, B. A. 1999c. ‘Commentson the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)’, Undateddocument from the internet site Kingsnake.com “TheVenomous Snake Forum” January 30, 2001 at02:12:58:5 at: http://www.Kingsnake.com/forum/venom/messages/31762.html (note the url) - Version3. (Actually published in this altered form in January2001)

Williams, D. J., Wüster, W. and Fry, B. G. 2006. Thegood, the bad and the ugly: Australian snaketaxonomists and a history of the taxonomy ofAustralia’s venomous snakes. Toxicon 48:919-939.

Wüster, W. 2004a. Posting at http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,521870,dated 22 July.

Wüster, W. 2004b. Posting at http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,532926,dated 3 August.

Wüster, W. 2004c. Posting at, http://w w w . s a r e p t i l e s . c o . z a / f o r u m /viewtopic.php?f=5&p=104864 dated 2 December.

Woolf, P. 2008. Statement re David John Williams,false report of stolen truck several years earlier,bouncing check and the like.19 May.

Wüster, W. 2008 Posts at: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/87176-support-new-guinea-snakebite-research.html. Dated 20 Jan andlater.

Wüster, W., A.J. Dumbrell, C. Hay, C.E. Pook, D.J.Williams and B.G. Fry. 2005. Snakes

across the Strait: trans-Torresian phylogeographicrelationships in three genera ofAustralasian snakes (Serpentes: Elapidae:Acanthophis, Oxyuranus, and Pseudechis).Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34:1-14.

Wüster, W., Bush, B., Keogh, J. S., O’Shea, M, andShine, R. 2001. Taxonomic contributions in the“amateur” literature: comments on recent descriptionsof new genera and species by Raymond Hoser.Litteratura Serpentium 21:67–79, 86–91.

Australasian Journal of HerpetologyPublishes original research in printed form in relation to reptiles, otherfauna and related matters, including the subjects of classification,ecology, legal, captivity, etc. in a peer reviewed journal and has a globalaudience.Our flexibility of publication size and format as well as the routinely shorttime between submission and publication ensures that papers are of thehighest possible quality and maximum impact for targeted readers.Full details of editorial policies, publication procedure, author submissionguidelines, peer review guidelines, legal matters, advantages ofpublication in this journal and the like can be found by following linksfrom:http://www.herp.netPublished by Kotabi Pty LtdPO Box 599Doncaster, Victoria, 3108.Australia.E-mail: [email protected] note e-mails not answered should be deemed “not sent” or “notreceived”.

ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)

Australasian Journal of Herpetology - Smuggled · Hoser 2009 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology...

Documents

Transcript of Australasian Journal of Herpetology - Smuggled · Hoser 2009 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology...